House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Government are highly committed to increasing physical activity for young people, which is why we are reforming the PE and school sports partnerships, strengthening links between schools, clubs and local communities, and investing in grassroots facilities. If I may say so, my hon. Friend is an outstanding advocate on this issue and an example of the amazing contribution that people can make throughout their lifetimes through sport. As an umpire for Wimbledon and someone who still plays tennis for her county, she is a shining example of what can be achieved through sport.
Rachel Taylor
I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind words. At the recent Warwickshire youth conference, young people spoke to me about the challenges they face in finding work, from poor mental health to lack of confidence. Grassroots sport can help to break that cycle by building resilience and giving young people the skills to succeed. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that sport plays a greater role in tackling the number of young people not in education, employment or training?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend will know that this Government co-produced with young people the national youth strategy, which we published last year. In that strategy we set out a commitment that all young people in this country should have somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. We are setting about rebuilding youth work and youth services, and putting my Department in the service of young people and that strategy through sports, art and other opportunities for them to live richer, larger lives. Next week we will publish the Milburn review to tackle the 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. The Prime Minister believes firmly—and I support him—that that has to include enriching activities for young people from an early age and all the way through their teenage years, so that when they go out looking for work, they have the resilience, confidence and skills to be able to benefit.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Reflecting on my time as Sports Minister, one thing that struck me is how much time we spent on the latest drama created by sports or governing bodies, and how little time we spent on promoting physical activity, to the extent that when we had meetings with Sport Ministers from around the world, it was striking that they were often members of a Department of Health, rather than some other body. Does the right hon. Lady agree that there is real merit in much closer co-operation, and perhaps even joint ministerial roles, in promoting physical activity and sports roles, with the added benefit of potential access to greater budgets?
Lisa Nandy
I strongly support what the hon. Gentleman says. Less than half of children are getting the recommended 60 active minutes a day, and we as a Government are really concerned about that. I agree that this has to be a whole-of-Government endeavour. In particular, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport need to work together much more closely. I have discussed this issue with the new Health Secretary and the new Education Secretary, but I am very keen to discuss it further with the hon. Gentleman and to get his advice as a former Sport Minister on how we might best achieve that.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
Lifting the full potential of our city regions and clusters across the UK is a core objective not just of our modern industrial strategy, but of our plan for growth in every postcode. Place-based funding is helping to ensure that our city regions and high-potential clusters are able to unlock more growth, create more good jobs and continue producing world-class creative content. London is a global creative industries super-cluster, and we are committed to supporting its continued success as one of the 12 priority super-clusters identified in the creative industries sector plan.
Gregory Stafford
My constituent Simon has built a media company in the heart of our creative sector in London, but at a recent surgery he told me that the Culture Secretary’s regional funding drive is destroying the creative industry in London and the south-east. Simon and his business partner employ 25 people, and they pay rent, business rates and service charges on top of their wage bill. We should be supporting this industry, not stripping it. What is the Minister doing to support the creative industries in the south of England?
Ian Murray
I congratulate Simon on setting up his business. It is true that 67% of all creative industries activity happens in London alone, and an extra 18% in the south-east. The region is a super-cluster, and this Government are doing all we can to ensure that we support the industry right across the United Kingdom. The BBC has built hubs across the country, including in Cardiff, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow, and they provide the ecosystem that allows companies to thrive. London will remain one of our super-clusters, and the funding that we are putting into the creative industries goes right across the country.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
To get growth in every postcode, surely we must junk the Tories’ crude anti-London formula that saw the whole of the capital disadvantaged, including Ealing Studios—the home of comedy—and Acton’s Versa Studios, where “Big Brother” is made. Can Ministers start the rebalancing by introducing an unscripted tax credit? It has worked wonders in Ireland, where it is at 20%.
Ian Murray
I do not know whether that was a question to me or a challenge to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who asked the original question. The Government are fully committed to funding the creative industries wherever they are across the country. The Prime Minister has challenged all of us in the Government to create growth in every postcode, but in order to do so we need creativity in every postcode, because we know that there is talent everywhere, but not opportunity.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This Government are more committed than ever to championing women’s sport and inspiring girls to get involved. One of the great pleasures I have had in recent years is being presented with the challenge of a whole generation of girls coming forward to play sports such as football and rugby, inspired by the stunning success of the Lionesses and the Red Roses. That is why we have removed many of the restrictions on what grassroots facilities we are prepared to fund. The one restriction we have put in place is that women and girls must have equal access to priority slots when we invest in grassroots sports facilities. I would be delighted to discuss with the hon. Member what more we can do.
Aphra Brandreth
At Westminster Park in my constituency, girls want to play football and cricket, but there is nowhere suitable for them to change. For the Leopards, Westminster Park’s girls football team, that becomes a real barrier as the girls get older and move up to the adult pitches. Councillor Razia Daniels and I have been campaigning with local residents to get better facilities, and the council has commissioned a feasibility study, but it has no capital budget for this, and without proper funding the girls risk another season without being able to play. I would like to take up the Secretary of State’s offer, so will she meet me to discuss how we can work with the Department to ensure that the council, the Football Foundation and Sport England secure the funding so that no more girls miss out?
Lisa Nandy
I would be very happy to ensure that officials follow up with the hon. Member to resolve that issue. She is right to point to changing facilities as one of the key reasons why girls do not stay involved in sport. We really have pushed hard to ensure that this is a priority for funding from the Football Foundation and others. A number of Members across the House have raised with me as Culture Secretary over the past couple of years the significant challenge of navigating these funding systems and the conditions attached to them. We are looking at how to make it much easier for councils and Members of Parliament to access that funding to solve the local problems that she describes, but I would be very happy to follow this up.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State please join me in thanking the volunteers at Junior Parkrun at Parc Bryn Bach in Tredegar. It has good facilities, but their hard work has doubled the number of girls and boys getting out to run on a Sunday morning. Having said that, research from Sky shows that girls in my constituency still do an hour and 16 minutes less sport each week than boys. Can she give us the wider picture of the steps that she is taking to close that gap and get more girls to be active?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Parkrun, which has been one of the real bright spots on the sport landscape in recent years—I am a keen participant in my local Parkrun at Haigh Hall and across the borough. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the volunteers at Junior Parkrun, because without them these amazing events would not happen. He is right to point to the challenges we still have with women and girls’ participation. There is no single solution, but I can assure him that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport are treating this as one of the top priorities in the Department.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
I was delighted to see £20 million allocated for a new cultural venue in Swindon via the growth mission fund, thanks to the tenacity of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander). Officials will continue to work on plans for the theatre with the new Conservative council, which I believe is assessing whether it should take this forward. The investment remains subject to a final business case demonstrating the project’s viability and affordability. I welcome this investment in the arts and communities in Swindon, and I thank my hon. Friend for his question.
Will Stone
I thank the Minister for his response. I am actively encouraging the Conservative administration in Swindon to proceed with the plans for a new theatre, following the funding successfully secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander) and me. In the interim, we have to think about our beloved Wyvern theatre. Is there any additional support to retrofit existing theatres in the interim?
Ian Murray
There is. We are investing up to £425 million via the creative foundations fund for urgent capital works for not-for-profit cultural venues in England. The funding is already supporting older theatres, such as Scarborough Theatre Trust and Northampton Theatres Trust. I understand that Wyvern theatre’s activities involve Swindon borough council, a commercial operator and a charitable programme via Reach Inclusive Arts. I encourage local partners to discuss capital pressures with Arts Council England and my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Arts Minister would be delighted to meet him and his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), to discuss that further.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Our listed buildings stand at the heart of our communities, and we are investing in heritage across the country with £230 million by 2030 to support listed buildings across England. That includes £75 million through the heritage at risk capital fund to support the repair and conservation of buildings at risk, and £92 million through the places of worship renewal fund for urgent repairs that keep buildings in use.
Sarah Bool
Many churches relied on the listed places of worship grant scheme to reclaim VAT paid on essential repairs and maintenance. The Government say that the new places of worship renewal fund will be targeted at areas with the greatest disadvantage and need. Can the Minister clarify the metrics being used and reassure my constituents that rural churches in areas such as South Northamptonshire will not be overlooked?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I appreciate that she is a huge champion for her local community, which has a rich heritage. The reality is that, under the previous scheme, 80% of those who got funding said that they would have done it anyway, so it was hugely under-targeted. The reality was also that more deprived areas simply could not raise the capital needed in the first place to qualify for the VAT rebate. Our places of worship renewal fund targets those places with the greatest levels of both deprivation and need.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Listed places of worship, such as St Mary de Haura in Shoreham, are not just places to pray; they are at the beating heart of our community. Following the listed places of worship grant scheme closing and being replaced by the more competitive and VAT-included places of worship renewal fund, my constituents are concerned about their ability to repair and maintain their places of worship. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to ensure that our places of worship can continue to serve our communities long into the future?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is right to point out how important they are to local communities. We have the places of worship renewal fund, which I have just spoken about. In addition, the Government have made available £230 million for heritage. Further, we have the National Lottery Heritage Fund and I also encourage him to engage with the Church of England.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Independent Football Regulator is empowering fans and protecting clubs from unsuitable owners. In the 12 months since we appointed the football regulator, he has published the “State of the Game” report, which is an unprecedented assessment of football finances, and the biggest ever undertaken. He is involved in highly complex negotiations across the football pyramid. He has also been involved in meeting fans from a number of clubs, including Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe, when problems have arisen.
Dr Evans
The Labour donor and chair of the Independent Football Regulator has said that if Manchester City were to sue the regulator, the regulator would need to come to the Government to get more money. Given the interest that the Prime Minister has specified about Man City and his opinion on that, how much money have the Government put aside just in case Man City sue the regulator?
Lisa Nandy
We have been clear from the outset that these are very serious allegations. Manchester City must have the right to a fair process, because it strongly refutes the allegations, but that is a matter for the Premier League. Its independent body will come to a determination about that—at which point, if the allegations are upheld, we will obviously all want to see action taken—but the process has to be allowed to run its course. I would just gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I am old enough to remember when he was putting out press releases welcoming the Independent Football Regulator, at a time when his Government were in power and intended to proceed with it, and when his Government had put the football regulator we later appointed on to the long list. If he thinks he is such a crony, he needs to ask why his Government decided to put him on the long list for the appointment in the first place.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
Thanks to research by organisations such as the Black Footballers’ Partnership, we know that while roughly 43% of players in the English premier league are black, black people hold just 1.6% of executive and leadership positions in British football. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the Black Footballers’ Partnership to discuss how the Government can support football in closing this outdated gap?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I think in the two years I have been Culture Secretary has not been raised directly with me in the House. He is absolutely right to say that that must change. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and I have done a lot of work with football and other sports to ensure that women are in positions of responsibility within clubs and organisations. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss what we can do to right this historical wrong.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my ongoing engagement with the culture, media and sport sectors as a shadow Minister. In addition to this Labour Government’s tax increases on sport, we recently learnt that their new football regulator has already spent double what the Government promised it would cost clubs and fans. When challenged on that, the chief executive of the football regulator argued that he did not agree with the Government’s forecasts, with only £1 million set aside to repay £45 million of set-up costs. That leaves £44 million unaccounted for. When should taxpayers expect their money back, and does the Secretary of State believe that the football regulator is operating to the light-touch mandate it was given by Parliament?
Lisa Nandy
Yes, I do. I strongly welcome the work that the Independent Football Regulator is doing, but that is less important than the fact that fans across the country strongly welcome the work that it is doing. The “State of the Game” report was a stark wake-up call to the whole of football. As the former Sports Minister, Dame Tracey Crouch, said when she established the regulator from the fan-led review, if we do not look after the foundations of football, then we will lose one of the things that brings joy to millions of people and is one of the UK’s greatest exports. It is right that we ask football to fund the regulator, it is right that we take action to ensure that there is fair financial flow through the game, and it is right that we set it up on an independent basis with a light-touch approach to ensure that we preserve the joy of football for generations to come.
Mr French
The other part of my question was about the £44 million that is currently unaccounted for. If the football regulator was to charge clubs on a £1 million basis over 10 years, that would equate to £10 million, which still leaves £35 million unaccounted for. Is the Secretary of State saying that football clubs should expect bigger bills next year, and how does she believe that will help make them more financially resilient?
Lisa Nandy
The shadow Minister has consistently stood at the Dispatch Box and challenged me and the Minister for Sport on ensuring that the football regulator is independent. We believe in that independence. The football regulator has offered him many meetings to discuss the various issues that he has raised in this House, and I am sure that it would be happy to meet to discuss funding.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Through our Arts Everywhere programme, we are investing £1.5 billion into culture and heritage infrastructure in places with the greatest need. That includes funding the Art Centre Penryn in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which was awarded project development grants through the heritage revival fund.
Jayne Kirkham
Cornwall Museum and Art Gallery is essentially the national museum for Cornwall. While £7 out of £8 of DCMS’s museum funding goes to our 15 national museums, which are free to enter, the Cornwall museum charges a fee, does not get funding from the local authority any more and, as it is trustee run, is not eligible for many funding streams. What options are there for the Cornwall Museum and Art Gallery in Truro to close that funding gap?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy on that issue. As an Arts Council England accredited museum, Cornwall Museum and Art Gallery is eligible to apply for the museum estate and development fund, which provides capital funding for urgent repairs and infrastructure maintenance. For other funding opportunities, the museum could also explore Arts Council and national lottery project grants and support from philanthropic organisations.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Essex and the Witham constituency have a range of fantastic heritage houses, museums and venues for people to visit. It will come as no surprise to the Minister and the Front Bench team that those venues are struggling because of increases in employment taxes and some of the other burdens they are now facing. Has the Department done a cumulative impact assessment on what that means for the sustainability of some of those big cultural heritage sites, and what more can the Government do to assist them?
Stephanie Peacock
The right hon. Member is a strong advocate for her constituency. This Government are investing in heritage across the country, with £230 million committed by 2030. I am sure the Minister for Heritage would be delighted to discuss it with her further.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
Before I answer the question, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we stand fully with him after recent incidents online, with him having received tens of thousands of disgusting messages and death threats. This Government and everyone else in this House—maybe with the exception of a few Members of Parliament —take a zero-tolerance approach to racism and those kinds of threats. We stand with the hon. Gentleman.
Local journalism is vital to society and democracy, including titles such as the Eastbourne Herald and the Eastbourne Reporter in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We published the local media action plan to help the sector adjust and thrive in the digital age. Our actions include a local news fund with up to £12 million, a campaign to inspire the next generation of journalists and readers, and an updated plan for journalists’ safety, both here and abroad.
Josh Babarinde
I thank the Minister for his comments. It should not be controversial to say that you do not have to be white to be English. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Much of social media has become a cesspit of abuse and disinformation, but local journalism can be an antidote to such poison. Local journalism in Eastbourne is thriving, with the likes of Adam and Ivana recently joining the Eastbourne Herald and Paul Gibson’s Eastbourne News expanding, too. Will the Minister tell us a little more about what he can do to support local journalism in the fight against disinformation and misinformation?
Ian Murray
We have the local news fund and the local news strategy. This is an issue right across the country, and we need to ensure that we have a thriving local journalistic community so that we can get those stories to people and so that the news is trusted and trustworthy. The BBC obviously plays a key role in that, and the BBC charter process is investigating how it can support that infrastructure and ecosystem across the country. I would be very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman in sharing his experience to see what we can do to help his local area and areas across all regions across the country. I want to emphasise from the Dispatch Box, too, that you do not have to be white to be English—the hon. Gentleman is right to say that—although you do have to be tight to be Scottish. [Laughter.]
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
From Scotland to Harlow, Mr Speaker. Online news sites like Your Harlow, which has provided thousands of news articles to Harlow residents across the years, rely on people visiting their site for advertising revenue, but there is a danger posed by AI summaries, particularly when some of those summaries are wrong. What thought has the Minister given to the impact of AI summaries on local news sources like Your Harlow?
Ian Murray
The Government are actively looking at this issue, because we know from experience—we always use the Southport example—that when there are incidents or crisis moments across the country, people turn to their local news outlets and the BBC to find the truth because they are sceptical of what they are reading. In the meantime, anyone who is reading these AI summaries online should double-check with their local newspapers and the sources they are given to ensure that that information is true. What happens, of course, is the old adage: a lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. That happens much faster now with social media. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has broken his habit in the House by at least mentioning Harlow in his question.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Vibrant local news is essential to our democracy, but plans for the Government or a state quango to pick what is a source of trustworthy news content and is prioritised over other publishers risk undermining that sector. Does the Minister agree that the approach of picking winners, with the state deciding what can be trusted, is a dangerous course and should be abandoned?
Ian Murray
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on this basis: the media Green Paper to which I think he is referring is trying to deal with the issue of misinformation and disinformation and to answer the exam question posed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) about how we promote the local trustworthy news that the public are crying out for and have a massive thirst for. It is an ecosystem that we have to try to support. The Green Paper is rightly posing these questions, and we will have the answers for the White Paper shortly.
James Wild
The Minister has not given an answer and has declined to rule out going ahead with the proposals in the Green Paper for the state or a quango to decide what is trustworthy news. Will he at least rule out that only news publishers that sign up to an approved regulator under the press recognition system could qualify?
Ian Murray
These are questions that have been asked in the Green Paper. The White Paper will be published soon, and I am not going to pre-empt it at this Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman will just have to contain himself until then. The big, fundamental issue here is how we deal with the misinformation and disinformation in this country that is undermining our democracy and society and doing the kinds of things that have been experienced by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. Those are the kinds of questions the Green Paper is trying to address. It is in all our interests—the interests of every Member in this House—to get misinformation and disinformation out of our ecosystem so that we can have a thriving democracy and thriving communities.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)
I thank my hon. Friend for her support for volunteers who strengthen communities like Blaydon and Consett, and I pay tribute to her first-hand experience as a Samaritan. This year we provided £300,000 for the Big Help Out, promoting nearly 5 million volunteering opportunities across the country. We extended the know your neighbourhood fund, providing an additional £4.5 million to voluntary organisations. We also worked with the Open Data Institute and civil society partners to create a simpler system for advertising opportunities across a range of platforms.
Liz Twist
In two weeks’ time, I will hold my annual red kite awards, ensuring that volunteers in Blaydon and Consett know the value of their work—they go above and beyond to help save lives and support whole communities. But for many voluntary organisations rising costs and reduced funding are making that good work ever more difficult. What steps are the Government taking to support voluntary groups and ensure that they are able to continue that vital support?
Vicky Foxcroft
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work she does to ensure that the red kite awards take place. This Government are backing a strong and sustainable voluntary sector, as outlined in the civil society covenant, through VAT reliefs on donated goods, updating charity thresholds, which will save £47 million annually, and the £2 million better commissioning pathways programme. We are supporting voluntary organisations to build resilience and deliver vital support.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
This year, Harrogate International Festivals is celebrating its 60th anniversary. It relies on a small army of volunteers to make it happen, with the fantastic leadership of Sharon Canavar as chief executive and Fiona Movley as chair of the board. Increasingly, arts festivals like Harrogate International Festivals are coming under strain, and we need to do more to make sure that we recruit the next generation of volunteers so that it is there for the future. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more we can do to ensure that the festivals have another 60 years and beyond?
Vicky Foxcroft
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all the work he is doing to celebrate the 60th anniversary of his local festivals. I would be more than happy to meet with him to discuss it further.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
Keeping children safe online is a top priority for this Department and the Government. That is why we are taking urgent steps to clean up our online spaces, including by raising the age limit for social media to 16, dealing with the risks of children livestreaming themselves, stopping unknown adults from communicating with children through online services, including gaming, and switching off harmful features for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. We will also prevent under-18s from accessing chatbots that offer sexualised content. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to continue these discussions.
Tom Collins
I am grateful to the Minister for his Department’s open initial response to the product approach, which would see digital products required to meet safety standards, just like every other product marketed in the UK. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has asked the Law Commission to look at this approach from a product liability perspective, and they are consulting on that now. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State work with their counterparts in that Department to explore treating digital products as products under the law?
Ian Murray
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He has recently launched a white paper on digital product safety, arguing that platforms, AI and social media should be subject to the same rigorous product safety frameworks as physical goods to protect the public without stifling innovation, and it looks at this from a hazards perspective rather than a harms perspective. It is an incredibly interesting piece of work. It is something that we are actively looking at, and platforms and social media companies should be looking at it to ensure that their products are safe by design for children.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Last week, analysis carried out by 17 expert organisations found that platforms are failing to protect women and girls online. This comes three years after the Online Safety Act and one year after Ofcom published its guidance. Does the Minister agree that this lack of action is unacceptable, and will the Government move quickly to strengthen the Act to better protect women and girls?
Ian Murray
I agree with the hon. Lady. Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for the Government. We wish to halve violence against women and girls by the end of this Parliament. Platforms are not doing their duty in making sure that these harms are removed. We are talking about and majoring on tackling harms for children at the moment, but we are trying to create a better online experience for everyone in society, whether they are children or not.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Government are rightly trying to protect children’s safety online, but AI smart glasses risk undermining some of those protections. Children and adults, particularly women, are being filmed without their consent and the footage is being posted online and used to train AI. In the Westminster Hall debate I secured last week, the Minister for Safeguarding said that the Government are looking at options to restrict the use of smart glasses. Will the Minister for Online Safety confirm what measures are being explored and when they will be laid before this House?
Ian Murray
Through the course of the consultation with Members, society and the industry on the under-16 social media ban, a lot of issues have arisen across the age ranges regarding smart glasses and some of the harms of new technologies. We are actively looking at what needs to be done in that area, particularly with smart glasses. It is a security issue and a safety issue; indeed, it is a consent issue. Smart glasses should not be any different from any other issues regarding people’s consent for using their images online and what is being done with those images.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
When I was appointed as Culture Secretary two and a half years ago, I was horrified to receive a letter from a Member of this House concerning the case of her constituent who had had his film pulled from a prominent arts venue simply because he was Jewish. In response to that, we set up a group convened jointly by Lord John Mann and Phil Rosenberg of the Board of Deputies to look at that issue. It is an ongoing problem. We have taken a number of steps, including asking Arts Council England to conduct an independent audit of how it handles antisemitism, and we have increased the amount of funding that we provide to Jewish organisations, including for security costs, because safety and security can never become an excuse for tolerating antisemitism and allowing Jewish people to be silenced.
Rebecca Smith
A growing number of Jewish employees at the BBC report that they face anti-Jewish racism at work, and revelations about the BBC’s appalling treatment of Jewish Oscar-winning producer Lucie Kon show that there has been a failure to deal with antisemitism at the heart of the corporation. Does the Secretary of State agree that an independent inquiry into antisemitism within the BBC is urgently needed?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady mentions the case of Lucie Kon, which I have discussed directly with the director general of the BBC. I will also meet Lucie in the coming weeks to discuss the matter directly with her. The BBC has done an enormous amount of work on the issue with the Board of Deputies and other Jewish organisations, but I firmly recognise that there is more to be done. We want the BBC to be an exemplar of how the Jewish community is treated in this country. I say this too: this Government do not believe that antisemitism is just a problem for Jewish people to solve. It is a test of the society that we are seeking to build together and we all have to step up and be counted.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We know that safe and accessible, high-quality community green spaces and local sports facilities are vital to helping more women and girls to get active. Through Sport England, we are helping local areas to target investment and supporting local authorities to create playing pitch strategies and opportunities for women and girls to take part in sport. Women and girls belong on every pitch that they choose to play on, and we are determined to ensure that we do more to support them.
Caroline Voaden
A school in Totnes in my constituency is planning to sell part of its grounds, including playing fields that are widely used by the community, including by many women, for sport and outdoor exercise. A campaign group is working on a proposal to buy the site, yet despite the site being registered as an asset of community value there is no guarantee that the bid would be accepted and that the playing fields would remain. A community right to buy fund was announced earlier this year, but there was no clarity about how it would work in practice. Does the Secretary of State agree that the right to buy scheme must be clarified to give groups such as the Friends of Lower Field a legal right to purchase playing fields such as these at market value to keep them in the community?
Lisa Nandy
I am aware that there are ongoing discussions between the school’s trust and community groups to explore options for preserving the facilities for community use, while recognising the importance of raising much-needed revenue for the school. Ultimately, this is a decision for the trust as the landowner, but we support ongoing efforts to find a workable solution for all concerned. The hon. Lady also raises a wider question about the way in which we approach cases such as these. I am happy to arrange for officials from my Department to reach out to her to discuss that further.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Dudley is home to outstanding female sporting talent, including boxer Kirstie Bavington and karate rising star Jess Wyman. Both have spoken to me about the lack of training facilities, financial support and a clear pathway to elite sport for young females. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that female athletes receive the right support to fulfil their potential, and will she meet them?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend has been a consistent champion of opportunities for women and girls and, in fact, for the whole community to be able to participate in sport in her constituency, and I thank her for that. We would of course be happy to follow up in the manner she suggests.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Mobile notspots are still a big problem in parts—[Interruption.] Sorry, I have just arrived. I meant to say, “No. 13.”
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
The right hon. Gentleman is really showing his experience in the Chamber there. [Laughter.] Mobile connectivity is not a “nice to have”; it is an everyday necessity which connects people and communities and drives growth in every postcode. Of course, we cannot have growth in every postcode without connectivity in every postcode. The Government’s ambition is for all populated areas to have access to high-quality stand-alone 5G by 2030.
Sir Julian Smith
I will try again. Mobile notspots are a big challenge in parts of North Yorkshire and other rural parts of the UK. The shared rural network has been effective at meeting its targets, but now that those targets have been met, what plans do Ministers have for the remaining notspots to be sorted out?
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the success of the shared rural network, but notspots still remain. Direct-to-device technology is one way of resolving those. It is a pragmatic solution for remote areas where terrestrial infrastructure is not viable. Lessons learned from the shared rural network programme demonstrate where this might offer a better solution, including for deployment costs, topography and local opposition to new infrastructure in some areas. We will continue to monitor this closely with the industry and ensure that all the tech is being made available to ensure these notspots disappear.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. With Cornish constituencies ranking on average 628th out of 650 for good-quality mobile coverage, the paucity of our digital connectivity affects businesses, residents and visitors alike. It is an exemplar of market failure. What are Ministers actually doing to correct this Cornish imbalance?
Ian Murray
The shared rural network programme has been a huge success, but as I said in answer to the initial question of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), there are still notspots and still some infrastructure problems across the country. We are working closely with the mobile networks to ensure that we can resolve those issues. New technology is coming forward all the time, including that direct-to-device satellite technology. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to go through the specific issues in his constituency and region to ensure that we have everything covered.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
A constituent of mine in her 80s living in a village with no mobile signal has contacted me to share her anxieties about the impending digital switchover. She has done everything asked of her to prepare and has a battery back-up, but she has been told that no fall alarm will work outside her house. She is worried that if there is a power cut that lasts longer than an hour, she will have no way of calling for help. As she put it to me, would it not be sensible to ensure that there was adequate mobile reception everywhere before the digital switchover? Does the Minister recognise these concerns and what will he do to address them?
Ian Murray
We have received correspondence on the kind of issues that the hon. Lady raises, and I am happy to meet her directly to go through her constituent’s particular concerns. We have to ensure that nobody is left behind when we are doing any kind of switchover from older to new technologies. We need to ensure in particular that vulnerable customers are looked after. We are working closely with the mobile networks to ensure that that happens and with the broadband providers to ensure that they can get to every part of the country as well.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Mobile reception is patchy at best in my semi-rural constituency. However, what is clear is when industrial sheds are built close to residential areas, mobile reception deteriorates, like in Ellistown in my constituency. Would the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how we can manage situations like this and prevent them in the future?
Ian Murray
I can commit to meeting my hon. Friend to talk about these specific issues. We do a regular telecoms drop-in for MPs, and I encourage all MPs to ensure they come to that so they can meet the mobile network operators and Building Digital UK on the broadband side to ensure that we are covering all these issues. It is not an exact science, so when there are examples like that which my hon. Friend brings forward, I would like to hear about them, so I am happy to meet her.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This country’s creative industries are world-leading, but for far too many people, they are a closed shop and we are determined to change that. We are investing in the BFI Film Academy to expand opportunities for young people from different backgrounds and parts of the country to be able to work in the film industry. We are investing through our Every Child Can programme to increase disadvantaged young people’s access to enrichment opportunities. But I have to say to my hon. Friend that progress on this has been frustratingly slow, and we will convene the creative industries in the coming weeks to ask them to do more.
Mrs Blundell
From Caroline Aherne to Peter Kay to the Gallagher brothers, in the past in Greater Manchester we have shown that coming from a working-class background has absolutely no bearing on a person’s ability to make a cultural impact. What further steps have been taken to remove barriers to entry into the creative industries and ensure that talented people from all backgrounds are given the opportunity to shine?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that. Through the work we have done with the TV historian David Olusoga and others, we have identified that there is not just a challenge at entry level; young people from diverse backgrounds hit a glass ceiling at a certain level and simply cannot progress. I am very proud of the fact that Wigan is the home of Ian McKellen, one of the greatest actors this country has ever produced, but frankly it is hard to see how a working-class lad from Wigan nowadays could go on to become one of the greatest actors in this country.
I say to the creative industries: this is existential. Any country can make series about posh boys playing gangsters in the east end. Very few countries can meet the genius of “Derry Girls”. In order to continue to make those incredible moments and create the best output, we need a far more diverse workforce than we have at the moment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State took my words, so I will change my question. Historically, there has been a higher concentration of artists and creative organisations in urban areas. However, talent and creativity are widespread across rural areas in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What steps will the Secretary of State take to address regional disparities in arts funding and ensure that individuals, regardless of where they are based, have fair and equal access to creative opportunities?
Lisa Nandy
I am fairly sure that is the first time the hon. Gentleman has been called a Derry Girl, but I think it might stick. I agree with him: there are significant challenges in different parts of the country, and some areas of the country have been hugely underfunded. We are correcting that. As he will have heard in the recent exchange with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety, that is not without controversy. I maintain that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not, and this Government have a responsibility to change that.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The National Centre for Arts Education is trying to improve music education by improving access to continuing professional development for teachers, but CPD cannot reach schools that do not have a music teacher, and these days many schools tragically do not have one. School is a key pathway into the creative industries for children of all backgrounds, so will the Secretary of State work with the Department for Education to restore the music PGCE bursary and support the Liberal Democrat call for 1,000 new music teachers, so that the National Centre for Arts Education can succeed in its mission?
Lisa Nandy
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety and I strongly believe that all children in this country deserve the right to live a richer, larger life through access to art, music, sports and culture. Over the last couple of decades, we have shamefully seen those opportunities stripped out of both our classrooms and our communities. I am working with the Education Secretary on reforms to the curriculum that will put art, sport, music, dance and drama back at the heart of the curriculum, where they belong. We are complementing that with a programme of work in our communities, including building music studios in libraries and other initiatives, and I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady on that agenda.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
May I start by wishing the men’s wheelchair rugby league world cup team the best in the final, which is being held tomorrow? I am sure the whole House wishes them all the best, and I hope they have considerably more success than your team often do, Mr Speaker.
On a much more serious note, I want to acknowledge the conviction of Russell Brand for rape and sexual assault. I pay tribute to the extraordinary women who bravely spoke out and to the persistent journalists who worked day in, day out to expose this abuse. This week we have seen other serious allegations being made. They are the latest in a long line of reported abuses of power in an industry where we have known for so long that power imbalances are huge, and that reputation and contacts are the foundations on which careers are built.
Next week, I will be meeting representatives from across media, entertainment and sport to discuss the action that we need to take, but I want to be clear with the House that if those protections are insufficient, the Government will not hesitate to take further action. For too long, too many people have had to choose between their career and their safety. People must be safe in their jobs, whistleblowers must be protected and those who abuse their position must no longer be able to hide.
Alex McIntyre
I was delighted by the recent Government announcement that more than £250,000 from the Heritage at Risk capital fund is being invested in the Fleece hotel in Gloucester. The hotel first opened in 1497, but it has sadly been closed to the public since 2002. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can secure the remaining funding that is needed to get that historic site in Gloucester city centre open again?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling campaigning work to protect such an important heritage asset. We were really pleased that the Fleece hotel could benefit from the Department’s investment through the Heritage at Risk capital fund. Other funding opportunities are available through Historic England, as well as through the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and I would be delighted to arrange for officials to work with my hon. Friend to see how we can best secure the future of that important site.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Russell Brand has now been jailed for rape and sexual assault. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with his victims, and I welcome the strong and powerful words of the Secretary of State just now. The BBC’s review into how complaints about Russell Brand’s behaviour were handled found that of eight complaints, only one was formally made at the time, and it was not dealt with effectively. It concludes that individuals felt “unable” to raise issues, believing
“that Russell Brand would always get his way,”
and so they stayed silent. Oscar-winning producer Lucie Kon has also shared her experience with the BBC after reporting antisemitic behaviour, and has raised concerns about the complaints process. In light of those harrowing stories, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the BBC as part of the charter renewal to ensure that we see more effective investigation of serious workplace complaints, and a zero-tolerance approach to misconduct going forward?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely accept that there is an important leadership role for the BBC in relation to this issue, but I would hate for us to forget that there were also a number of entertainment, media and publishing organisations where concerns raised about Russell Brand’s behaviour were simply not acted on. That is why I am bringing together representatives from across those different industries, to ensure that we draw a line in the sand and take action that is long overdue.
The hon. Lady asked about the BBC in particular, and she is right to say that significant problems were uncovered at the BBC. I am deeply frustrated that we have had so many reviews: the Dame Janet Smith review into Jimmy Savile; the review into the conduct of Huw Edwards; and reviews into the conduct of Tim Westwood. If we put those reviews next to each other and look at the recommendations, we see that they are the same recommendations over and over again. I will not accept that we cannot get our act together and ensure that our public service broadcaster, of which this country is rightly very proud, upholds better standards and processes than we have seen to date.
Rebecca Paul
Next year marks 1,100 years since Æthelstan united England and began the glorious national story that we are still telling to this day. It is an occasion worthy of celebration and recognition, yet when the Government were asked how they intended to mark it, the answer was that there are no plans. This important anniversary should be a moment of national joy that brings communities together, and a milestone marked by commemorative coins and stamps, special lessons in schools, Æthelstan on Trafalgar Square’s fourth plinth, and perhaps even a visit by His Majesty to this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State reconsider celebrating the 1,100th anniversary of England’s birth, and share with the House any such plans in due course?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue, which had not previously been brought to my attention. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) who is responsible for ceremonials, has just said to me that this is right up her street, and she would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady to ensure a fitting commemoration.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
I congratulate Neil and everyone in the team at Medina Studios on putting together a fantastic proposal. We are supportive of areas that want to grow their film industry and the work that has gone into Medina Studios is very impressive indeed. The Government are committed to maximising the potential of the film industry and ensuring that growth benefits the whole of the UK. The Department funds the British Film Commission to support UK infrastructure, including studio space. The BFC promotes the entire UK, including the Isle of Wight, working hand in glove with Creative England on production support, where appropriate. I am pleased to note that the BFC has assisted Medina Studios. Funding from the growth mission fund is a matter for the Treasury. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and I thank him for the way in which he champions the Isle of Wight through that project.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
It was a pleasure to be at the opening of that fantastic youth zone with the hon. Gentleman, and to see the queues of young people stretching far into the distance and the excitement it brought them. He is right that there is a particular challenge in rural communities. Through Youth Matters, our national youth strategy, we have taken restrictions off funding and our only stipulation is that young people must have meaningfully been able to drive those decisions. In order to address those concerns, we will fund transport and travel as well as facilities in places that have been overlooked.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency earlier this year. The best way to protect our heritage is to use it and I thank him for his work to secure a future for the General Wolfe building. I encourage developers and historic building owners to engage early with our arm’s length body Historic England, and I am sure that the Heritage Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Ian Murray
That is an issue for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we have been working closely with that Department about its planning proposals. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will be not be disappointed when they come forward.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is right to talk about stronger co-ordination between heritage planning, regeneration and housing policy. I know how important heritage-led regeneration is for local growth, and I understand that the Heritage Minister is looking forward to holding a roundtable on that issue in my hon. Friend’s area.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I was not previously aware of the issue, but I am happy to it take up. We believe in the importance of cricket and we also believe very much in the relationships that we have with our Indian counterparts. Cricket is one of the ties that binds us together, so I would be pleased to look into the issue she raises with a view to resolving it.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for championing his constituency. Decisions on the reopening of Grace Hill and the use of the building are matters for the local council, but he has made his case well today, and I am sure that he will continue to do so. I will pass on his request for a visit to the Minister with responsibility for libraries, who I am sure will be keen to visit and to meet him.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
What will the Government do to ensure that councils have the funds to keep libraries open, especially when many people will be struggling to heat their homes this winter and thus have an even more vital need of this service?
Vicky Foxcroft
We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and colleagues across Government to ensure that we deliver on that.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
The hottest ticket this summer, in many senses, was Peterborough lido, which, like many other historic pools, had its best season ever. However, we all know that many of our historic pools and lidos suffer from old infrastructure, and need tender love and care from our communities and Government. What more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that this Government back our lidos and historic pools?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling advocacy on behalf of Lidos everywhere and Peterborough lido in particular; he knows that I share his passion on the issue. I can tell the House that we are creating a public leisure facilities programme that will provide support for lidos and other swimming facilities, and that—thanks to the work that he and others have done to campaign for this—the programme will include the first dedicated fund for lidos that this country has produced.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Russell Brand and David Walliams are just the latest examples of entertainment giants knowingly exploiting power imbalances, yet they have been at best shielded and at worst enabled by some of the organisations they worked with. We keep hearing reports that non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality agreements were part of these stars’ arsenal. What are the Government doing to ensure that those legal routes cannot be used to stop victims speaking out, so that revolting men are not shielded from facing the music for their abusive behaviour?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the issue of NDAs as being central to this situation. I am working closely with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, and have discussed this issue with them over recent days. This will be part of the conversation that we have with the creative industries when I convene the roundtable next week. As I said earlier, we will not hesitate to take action to protect women and ensure that these vile men are exposed and brought to justice.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
It has been 18 months since my Committee published its report on misinformation, with detailed recommendations on how to address the way in which digital advertising drives scandalous, sensationalist and addictive content, yet our inquiry into digital childhood is raising exactly the same issues. What has been done to address them? To be clear, neither Ofcom’s online information advisory committee nor the online advertising taskforce has taken any steps.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that my hon. Friend asked that question, which concerns a vital issue that the Government are trying to deal with. The online advertising taskforce has workstreams that have been looking at the issue very closely. I chair that taskforce, and am keen to push it further forward. The issue is not just the way in which advertising is delivered, but the monetisation of illegal and harmful content; if we want to deal with any of the issues relating to the online world, we must follow the money.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Salisbury Playhouse is one of three producing theatres in the south-west, and this week it launched a campaign to raise £22 million. The Arts Council, Wiltshire council and Salisbury city council have already made a £10 million contribution. Are the ministerial team having conversations with the Treasury to create incentives for private philanthropy and giving, so that we can maximise the opportunity to fill this gap and make Salisbury Playhouse the brilliant place it needs to be for the future?
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman asks a great question. The Hodge review into Arts Council England examined what we need to do to bring more philanthropic funding into the sector so that it has more money, not less. I encourage him to engage with Arts Council England on taking those proposals forward. Of course, these questions are always a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury, but we are working very closely with Treasury colleagues on how we can implement the Hodge review in full.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I am proud to represent Liverpool, a city that has produced some very talented footballers, musicians and actors, including Stephen Graham, Jodie Comer and James Nelson-Joyce. However, far too many of our young working-class kids in Liverpool fail to get into the creative sector. Can the Secretary of State commit to doing everything she can to remove the barriers so that more working-class young people in Liverpool can break into the sector based on talent, not on privilege and class?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is right to point to Liverpool’s incredible contribution across sport, art, music—you name it. Mayor Steve Rotheram is doing an enormous amount to invest in order to open up those opportunities further. There is a fantastic organisation in Liverpool called MusicFutures, which we are working with, along with others, to make sure that we do exactly what she rightly presses us to do.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that the Government will not achieve growth in every postcode unless we have adequate mobile connectivity. Unfortunately, in my constituency, many postcodes have inadequate mobile connectivity. Indeed, we have some of the worst connectivity in the whole United Kingdom. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that we can get some urgency into finally resolving this important issue for my constituents?
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right: we cannot have growth in every postcode without connectivity in every postcode. I would be happy to meet him, but I gently remind him that when we do, it is his turn to buy the wine.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In response to Blackpool being shortlisted to be city of culture, Lynn Williams, the leader of Blackpool council, rightly said:
“We have a proud working-class culture and a wonderful history of entertainment, music and performance.”
Our bid to become the next city of culture for the UK is the right and only choice for the panel. It will allow us to celebrate our iconic history and shape our future, because Blackpool never settles for anything small. Will the Secretary of State support our ambition by supporting our much-loved heritage venues and my campaign for a new arena to create a year-round resort, showing Blackpool in a new light?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is a huge advocate for his constituency. I have to stay neutral, but I am absolutely delighted to be visiting his area tomorrow as part of the shortlist process for the city of culture.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The AI teddy bear that said unprompted, “I can’t help with killing you”, shows that online harms are extending to software within toys. Will the Government consider the Lib Dem approach of having a framework of harm that can look online and at the software in products with these developing technologies?
Lisa Nandy
We are taking a far more comprehensive approach to this issue for the reasons that the hon. Member rightly describes. Safety by design is one of the key principles on which we are basing our approach.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The fantastic Falkirk Foundation was back with £139,000 of UK Government support to lay a new all-weather pitch at Woodlands community sports centre this year. Councillor Jack Redmond and the Bonnybridge community are now bidding to renew the football facilities at Jenny’s Park, including through the UK Government-supported Pitching In fund. Will the Minister thank the Falkirk Foundation for its ongoing, incredible contribution to the Falkirk community and agree that any new funding should come to Bonnybridge?
Lisa Nandy
I am told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that Falkirk beat Hearts 5-2 on Sunday, and he does not look very happy about it. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Falkirk Foundation. The Government are investing £400 million in grassroots sports facilities for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) describes.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)
As Southampton’s former long-serving and at times long-suffering chairman, I know the beautiful game better than most in this Chamber. Football fans have been taken for fools over the outdated Saturday 3 pm blackout for too long. Travel abroad, and we find bars showing every 3 pm premier league match live all at once, yet here in England fans cannot watch a single one—at least legally. Will the Minister press the Football Association to lift the blackout and push for an online monthly subscription service, thereby allowing affordable access to every single FA and PL match for working families and hospitality venues? Football belongs to the people.
Lisa Nandy
There is obviously a lively debate among football fans about this issue, and it has been raised with me and the Sports Minister a number of times. The hon. Member will know that there are consequences to taking the action that he describes, but I think we can agree on the final principle that he outlined: football belongs to its fans, and their voices must be heard.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Ealing Southall is home to Ealing Studios, the country’s longest continuously operating film studio. A recent report found that west London is a hub for media and creative industries, with up to 7,000 companies. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s commitment to increase investment in the media and creative sector from £17 billion to £31 billion will create more jobs in west London while ensuring growth in every postcode, from Southall to Stockport and from Hanwell to Hartlepool?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We need to go faster to get everybody in.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor pledged to protect seaside arcades, but the increase in the machine games duty from 20% to 25% threatens businesses in my constituency, such as Leisureland on Bridlington seafront, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. Will the Minister make representations to the Treasury to ensure that we protect those brilliant local businesses?
Vicky Foxcroft
I thank the hon. Gentleman for advocating on behalf of his constituents. Slot games have a higher associated risk of harm than other in-person gambling activities, such as sports betting or bingo games. That is why the Government are increasing the rate of machine games duty from 20% to 25% on machines with stakes over £1 or prizes over £100 from 1 April 2027. There will be no change to the rate for lower-stakes machines, but I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue further.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
As historic pools and lidos enjoy a renaissance, will the Secretary of State work with me to reopen the doors of Carlisle’s Victorian baths? They are the last in the north-west and one of only 13 in the country.
Lisa Nandy
I was not aware of the incredible Turkish baths in Carlisle, but I am very happy to work with her on ensuring that we support the aims of her campaign and restore the baths to their former glory.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the statements that the Secretary of State has made about addressing the issues that we have seen raised again this week by the conviction of Russell Brand. Having worked in that industry, I know that the problem goes much wider than just the big figures. Bectu says that nine out of 10 workers in the creative sector have experienced or witnessed sexual harassment or assault. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as this action now happens, we need to use the entertainment industry and the creative sector to call out this behaviour across society and to make it clear that it is not acceptable in any form?
Lisa Nandy
We work very closely with Bectu and the National Union of Journalists, and I pay tribute to their work on this issue. The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety and I recently appointed two freelance champions in recognition of the fact that, for freelancers in particular, there is a real problem in these industries. All of us in this House need to step up and use our voices as loudly as we possibly can; hand on my heart, as the Culture Secretary, I cannot say that this issue is not happening today—in fact, I would wager that it is. It is time that we all stand up, as the hon. Lady has done today, and ensure that we are heard and counted.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
As someone who played in rock bands and wrote songs, I was delighted to read in the Canadian budget about the Canada creative credit: 48,000 Canadian dollars-worth of tax credit to provide creative artists with income, tax-free, on the creative output that they engage in. Will the Minister update the House on the excellent work we are doing and on what more we can do to help creative artists across this land?
Ian Murray
I am delighted that the old rocker has asked that question. We have a 10-point plan for music, which is there to support the music industry from a grassroots level all the way through to our top talent and artists. The Arts Council England review, led by Baroness Hodge in the other place, looked at whether we should support individual artists, and the Arts Council is now looking at that to see how it can best support individual artists. We are backers of music, and we want to continue to be the best in the world.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Highbridge Social Club is a not-for-profit club led entirely by volunteers, and it has served our community since it was founded in 1913. Club treasurer Rachel Marsh has written to me to say that the rise in machine games duty announced in the Budget will cost the club £1,500 a year. Coming on top of the employer national insurance charges, this Government’s tax increases threaten the viability of the club. What help and advice can the Minister offer to Rachel as she struggles to balance the club’s books?
Vicky Foxcroft
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that really important point. I refer in part to what I said earlier, but let me also say that the measure will raise an additional £130 million a year, which will help to pay for the freeze in business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will ensure that he gets a fuller response.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Hilsea lido is a real jewel in the crown of Portsmouth North; it first opened in 1935, and it holds a special place in our history. Following its fantastic regeneration, it has been wonderful to see hundreds flocking back this summer. Will the Minister join me in thanking Sea Lanes, the lido’s operators? Will she also join me in praising the dedicated trustees and volunteers of Hilsea Lido Pool for the People Trust, who kept the money going and kept the lido running through very dark times, and without whom it would not be open now?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely do—I thank Sea Lanes, the trustees, and all the volunteers. There is a volunteer army in this country that ensures our fantastic lidos can continue to operate, and it is great to see my hon. Friend championing them. We will also champion them through the funding I recently announced to my hon. Friend.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
What assessment has the Minister made of the cyber-security risks posed by DeepSeek in light of the US’s decision to block it from public procurement?
Ian Murray
We will bring forward additional legislation to this House shortly to protect our undersea cables and infrastructure from threats, whether they be state or non-state threats. I hope everyone will support those proposals, including the hon. Gentleman.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
In 2002, Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles said on air that he wanted to help Charlotte Church lose her virginity. She was 15 at the time. He stayed in post for another decade. Does the Secretary of State agree that Brand and Walliams were not aberrations, but reflect a culture across entertainment that needs to be consigned to history?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it reflects a culture that I hope we are now thankfully rid of. Sadly, though, what we are not rid of is instances of men in positions of power abusing that power. That is still happening today, and this Government are not neutral when it comes to the safety of people—women and young people—in those workplaces, which is why we are taking the action I have described.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Christmas is coming, and Boxing day will see the running of the world-famous King George at Kempton Park racecourse in my constituency. If any of the Front Benchers on either side of the House would like to come to the King George at Kempton Park, I am sure the Jockey Club would be delighted to see them there.
Vicky Foxcroft
I was delighted to go to Newbury races last week, and I would love the opportunity to come to Kempton Park. Please do write to me—I will try to ensure we get a date in the diary.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
With £7 out of every £8 of DCMS funding for museums and galleries going to just 15 national museums and galleries, and cultural investment per head in Cornwall being less than £10 compared with a national average of £15, may I ask for Ministers to meet Cornish MPs to discuss closing this cultural chasm, beyond suggestions of donations and lottery funding?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that parts of the country have historically been hugely underserved, and it was to correct that historical wrong that we established the Arts Everywhere fund. Arts and culture belong to all of us, and I would be delighted to set up a meeting with officials so that we can pursue this issue in Cornwall.
United Kingdom Military Installations
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the protection of United Kingdom military installations.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The security of the United Kingdom’s military installations, the people who work on them and the communities around them is a core responsibility of this Government. Defence faces an evolving range of threats, including hostile reconnaissance, sabotage, espionage, terrorism, organised crime, unauthorised access and the malicious use of drones. We therefore keep the protection of our sites under constant review against the intelligence and threat picture. Our approach is layered and intelligence-led; it combines physical protection, access controls, surveillance, policing, guarding, aerial monitoring and counter-drone capabilities. We do not rely on any one single measure, and I hope the House will understand that it would be irresponsible to disclose details of vulnerabilities or protective arrangements at individual sites.
Following the recent incidents at RAF Fairford and RAF Molesworth, Defence strengthened protection across the estate, including sites hosting the United States visiting forces. Enhanced vigilance remains in place, sites have reviewed their security posture, and additional policing, guarding and specialist support have been deployed where required. We continue to work closely with civilian police, the United States and local partners. There have been no further reported breaches since those incidents, but we are not complacent and continue to keep our security posture under review.
We are also investing for the long term. The defence investment plan provides an additional £470 million over four years to improve security technology and infrastructure at military sites. More than £750 million is being invested in short-range counter-drone protection for the United Kingdom and deployed forces. We are expanding restricted airspace above Defence locations, and the Armed Forces Bill will strengthen Defence’s powers and ability to detect, identify and defeat uncrewed systems that threaten our sites and operations.
No security can remove all risk. We continue to prioritise our most critical assets, adapt our arrangements as the threat changes, and ensure that anyone seeking to compromise a Defence site can expect a robust security and police response.
You will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is much I will not be able to say in this urgent question, as we do not comment on intelligence matters or ongoing operations, but I do want to place on the record how proud I and the Defence Secretary are of our armed forces, security services and police, who are working so hard to keep our country safe.
Mr Francois
I thank Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I would like to press him on three matters in return.
First, the withdrawal of key American air assets from RAF Mildenhall follows a similar decision to withdraw B-1 bombers from RAF Fairford in the face of an alleged Iranian threat, an incident at RAF Molesworth and an assault on RAF Brize Norton by Palestine Action in June 2025. What discussions have Defence Ministers had with their American counterparts to reassure them that our airbases are still safe for their aircraft and, indeed, our own?
Secondly, what can the Minister tell us about the arrest of a US serviceman for alleged espionage at Imjin barracks, the headquarters of NATO’s British-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps? The incident was described by FBI director Kash Patel as
“of the utmost concern to the United States and our allies.”
Well, it concerns this House too.
Thirdly, the Defence Secretary recently said, starkly, that we should prepare for war within a thousand days. He has even got us stockpiling baked beans. But when we ask about the whereabouts of the defence readiness Bill, which will be crucial in preparing for such a conflict, likely with Russia, we are simply told that it is not ready and that it will not be until the end of this Parliament, by which time the war could already have begun. This totally contradictory policy comes at the expense of our national security.
To recap, what have we told our American allies about our ability to protect our airbases and their air assets? What more information—there must be some—can the Minister share with the House about the arrest at Imjin barracks and its implications for our security and, indeed, NATO’s security. Lastly, when, if ever, will the Government publish the now clearly urgent defence readiness Bill?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is hard, as he and the House will appreciate, for me to comment on ongoing investigations. However, in relation to his question about the arrest, the police have confirmed that a member of the US army has been arrested under sections 1 and 3 of the National Security Act 2023 for assisting a foreign intelligence service, specifically relating to Russia. This is a live investigation, and I want to allow the police the time and space to carry it out without additional commentary. I hope that he and the House will appreciate that.
On US assets, the movement and positioning of US military aircraft is an operational matter for the United States. It has said that aircraft routinely rotate between locations for training and operational requirements. I will not speculate further, for reasons of operational security, as I hope the House will understand.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a Government who are increasing defence spending, after his party cut defence spending when in power. We are legislating for more powers to defend our nation in the Armed Forces Bill, and we are engaging across Government and with stakeholders in preparation for the defence readiness Bill because we want to get it right. I appreciate that he wants to make partisan points about this, but we are trying our best to update legislation with the Armed Forces Bill and we will continue to do so with the defence readiness Bill later in this Parliament. We will continue to ensure that our nation is prepared to meet the threats we face in a more difficult time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
At a time when we need our armed forces and defence industry even more, given the raised threat level, attacks on them are a cause for huge concern. That is why the Defence Committee raised this issue last year in our report on the UK’s contribution to European security. The trade associations all raised anxieties about the potential for attacks on defence industry employees when they appeared in front of the Committee last month. In the light of the withdrawal of US assets from both RAF Fairford and RAF Mildenhall, is the Minister concerned that the potential threat against defence bases and the defence industry seems to be increasing? What are the Government going to do to keep them safe?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he does on the Defence Committee. That work is an important part of helping build public awareness and asking the Department the right questions. He is right to say that we are seeing an increased threat, not just to the United Kingdom and our allies, but to our defence industrial base. It is for that reason that we have been engaging more, not just via the Defence Industry Joint Council—our main convening function between businesses large and small in the defence sector—but with trade bodies and individual firms. We need to be aware that the threats posed to the defence industry come in a variety of forms and guises. We are working with the intelligence services, the police and the industry to increase physical protection in locations where appropriate, which my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on further, but also to create a culture in which threats are reduced by having greater involvement of the workforce and communities in identifying risks.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Ministers say that they are serious about bolstering Britain’s defences, that they recognise the once-in-a-generation threats facing our country, and that they are building a more resilient and ready nation. Despite the lofty rhetoric, it feels like our vital military bases are now under daily, immediate and grave threat. There is a gaping chasm between the Government’s language on defence and the action needed to make this country safe and deter our adversaries. That chasm is eroding the trust and confidence of both British citizens and our allies.
This House was promised a comprehensive review of the security of our military bases, but we are still waiting for its outcome. In the light of the recent multiple threats, that delay is unacceptable. Can the Minister confirm when the review will be completed? Will he commit the additional resources needed to accelerate its delivery, and will he outline what immediate steps he is taking to strengthen base security?
Luke Pollard
I recognise the seriousness of the situation, so I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her question. We recognise that the threats to our country are increasing. We have published the strategic defence review, which sets that out very clearly. We have published the defence investment plan, which sets out how we will increase the defence budget and spend it not only on new capabilities, but on our people and bases. We have set out in the defence investment plan £470 million, over four years, to improve base security and base protection. It is difficult to go into the details on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to invite the hon. Lady’s party for a briefing, if that would be useful. We continue to commit resources to support the security of our personnel, both at home and, importantly, when deployed abroad. The work that we are doing to review our base security is ongoing, to ensure we have the right assets, the right people and the right systems in place at all UK bases and those used by our allies.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In East Anglia, we have long taken great pride in the presence of our US allies. In the light of heightened security concerns, especially at RAF Mildenhall, what more can we do to ensure the safety of the many United States personnel who live off the base, in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket?
Luke Pollard
Not only has my hon. Friend asked me that question today; it is a matter that he and I have spoken about on a number of occasions since he entered the House, and he is right to talk about it. The United States remains our No. 1 defence and security partner. We take very seriously the threats not only to military installations, but to personnel living in our wider communities. Just as we have offered a briefing to the constituency MP for Mildenhall, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), I am happy to extend such an invitation to him, should he wish to see more granular detail of the approach at a local level, which it may be inappropriate to put in the public domain on the Floor of the House.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am deeply concerned by the redeployment of the dozen aircraft from Mildenhall. I think it sends a shocking message about our ability to protect our allies. Without wishing to probe the “out of bounds” box of the security detail, I have one question for the Minister: were any Defence Ministers informed prior to the redeployment that it was taking place?
Luke Pollard
The Defence Secretary has already set out that we have been in discussions with the United States for some time. The movement of US aircraft is a matter for the United States.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his continued work to increase the readiness of this country to protect ourselves not just abroad, but at home. Can I ask about the enduring close relationship with the United States of America? We have seen a joint police and intelligence-led arrest this week, and we continue to work extremely closely together. In the Minister’s portfolio of readiness across the MOD, can he give us an example of how closely we are working and continue to work with our ally, the United States of America?
Luke Pollard
The work we are doing with the United States includes the operational security of our missions, especially joint missions that we undertake bilaterally with the United States and as part of NATO and further afield. On our base security at home, the work our security forces and armed forces do with the United States visiting forces and intelligence agencies is very close, very deep and ongoing, which means that we have a close partnership to meet the threats we are facing. We do know that the threats are increasing, so we are increasing our work accordingly. We continue to work with our US friends, and we will make sure that we do so with our European and NATO allies as well.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Minister has spoken about the severity of the threats we face, and that affects our entire national security. The prospect of military espionage is severe and the type of tactics we have seen are very serious, and a major arrest has been made this week. Does the Minister think that he and his Department have all the resources, skills and experience they need to tackle what is an ever-changing and evolving threat to our national security and, in particular, to our military bases?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member is right that the threats we face are increasing, and they are increasingly complex as well. This is not just about human espionage by people, but about how espionage involving criminal gangs and cyber-attacks can be paired together. We in the Ministry of Defence work very closely with the intelligence agencies—both ours and those of our allies—and we continue to invest further in that. She will have heard me talk about the £470 million for base security, and there are additional budgets, both in the defence budget and the wider Home Office security budget, for our work with the intelligence services.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Through written answers, I was able to find out that the police costs for the 2024 drone incursions at RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Feltwell were over £600,000, but there was no information on the total cost. We know that hostile states such as Russia and Iran will try to probe such bases, because it is cheap for them but potentially costly for us. Will the Minister make sure that he does everything he can to capture the full cost of these incursions for our bases and the wider economy?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend’s work on what he describes as the “Putin tax” is a really important contribution, because there is a deliberate attempt by adversaries to load costs and difficulties on to the United Kingdom and our allies by posing such dilemmas. The House will be familiar with some of those asymmetrical, grey zone activities, and we have disclosed that there has been Russian and adversary activity. Such activity results in a cost to the UK taxpayer and to the defence budget, and his work is helping to tell the public about the amazing work our security services and armed forces do in countering that risk, but also about the tactics of the Russian Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
A US official was quoted by NBC News saying that American armed forces personnel at RAF Mildenhall are under “enhanced force protection measures”, including much stricter ID and vehicle checks. Given that some aircraft have been moved via Prestwick airport in Scotland, can the Minister confirm that enhanced security is in place there, too?
Luke Pollard
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion in the Liberal Democrat reshuffle to shadow Minister for veterans—an important topic that I know he cares about deeply. As he will appreciate, I cannot comment on individual security arrangements for bases at specific locations, but I can confirm to the House that we keep all our base security arrangements under review and continue to invest in them.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Last year, a huge wildfire came within a mile of RAF Fylingdales, a ballistic missile early warning base that plays a critical role in UK and US security. In the light of growing environmental and security threats, can the Minister reassure my constituents by setting out what the Government are doing to ramp up security and resilience at critical installations such as RAF Fylingdales?
Luke Pollard
The threats facing our bases are not just from foreign actors. My hon. Friend is right to talk about the effects of a changing climate. She will know that the Prime Minister announced that the RAF will be taking on a new firefighting role, building on the firefighting expertise we have on our bases in Cyprus. That will involve additional equipment on some of the RAF assets so that they are able to tackle wildfires in the United Kingdom in future.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The women and men in our security services are doing the most incredible work on this front and on multiple fronts at the current time. Will the Minister commit to fighting in Government and across Government to get whatever resource they need?
Luke Pollard
I am not neutral on this matter. I want more resource for defence, and I have made that case very strongly from the Dispatch Box. We have an increasing defence budget. The Chancellor set out that 3% of our GDP will be spent on defence in 2030 and 3.5% by 2035. My priority will be to spend it wisely and to make sure we learn the lessons from the broken procurement system we inherited so that we have more of that money on the frontline where it is needed.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Will the Minister outline the impact the defence investment plan will have on improving the security technology and infrastructure at our bases?
Luke Pollard
Yes. The £470 million investment over the next four years in the DIP is for both upgrading the traditional security arrangements that the House will be familiar with—the physical security—and, increasingly, looking at the counter-drone threat and vulnerabilities that were previously not something that defence would worry about. When there are new technologies that we have a greater concern about, we will continue to invest, beyond the four-year period, in more base upgrades as the defence investment period continues.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his comments about wildfire tackling equipment, which will be of benefit to my constituents. In my Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey constituency, there are about 4,500 serving personnel and 1,000 MOD contractors. Add in families and the wider community, and the numbers invested in base security are vastly higher. Given that Scotland is already badly exposed by the UK’s defence doctrine, which has been compounded by two decades of underfunding, what assurances can the Minister give to my constituents, both serving and civilian, that we are not on the frontline of weak base security—just the latest iteration of MOD incompetence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman, because I think there was some praise in the question somewhere. The steps we have set out on wildfires are an important contribution to the wider resilience effort. I am pleased that the Scottish Government are finally engaging with defence in a way that they have not done previously. Their match funding for the defence technical excellence colleges is an important step in that, but I say to him politely that I do not want to see politicians of any party doing Putin’s dirty work for him by dividing us when we should be standing together.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Given the increasingly clandestine, sophisticated and despicable behaviour of our adversaries in the cases the Minister has mentioned, will he commit to encouraging the Government to bring forth legislative changes should they be necessary to make sure that we can counter those threats? The entire House would, I am sure, back the Government in doing that.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Armed Forces Bill, which is going through the other place, has a number of measures that seek to enhance airspace protection around our defence sites and to give us additional powers to protect some of those bases. I know that there is strong cross-party support for the Armed Forces Bill, and that will make a difference. We are also preparing, across Government, further measures in the defence readiness Bill to deal with this period of contest in which we find ourselves. I will continue to engage with parliamentarians across both Chambers on that Bill.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will the Minister acknowledge that the Iranian campaign in the UK is as much a political campaign as a physical one? The Iranians are gaming the ludicrous image in the MAGA mind in the United States that somehow the United Kingdom is now a basket case when it comes to security and playing on the weakness of America’s commitment to our security. What will the Government do to combat that strong political messaging and to provide a reassurance campaign about security at our military bases?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question because it gives me the opportunity to clearly set out that the relationship we have with the United States is strong and enduring and will remain our No. 1 security partnership. Our armed forces work closely together, strengthening the UK-America relationship and the wider security of NATO. We are seeing an increase in misinformation, especially online. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Prime Minister has set out his intention to create a centre to address misinformation, which was a recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is an important part of how we tackle misinformation, but another important part is ensuring that we do not inadvertently share misinformation or give greater emphasis to those people who wish to do us harm. Tackling misinformation online is as important as the base security arrangements—the physical netting around our bases.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My constituency is home to the Army Foundation College just outside Harrogate. It is an isolated site west of Harrogate, yet we have seen proposals for over 280 homes to be built immediately next to it. Given that the Minister has outlined concerns about the protection of sites and the threats posed to them, what steps is the MOD taking with other Departments and North Yorkshire council on the security and protection of places like the AFC?
Luke Pollard
Harrogate plays an important role for our armed forces, and the hon. Member will know what good work takes place there. I am happy to arrange a meeting with the Minister for Veterans and People to discuss Harrogate. We should be aware that right around our country, there are communities next to our bases that care passionately about the security of those bases and actively contribute to it.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is really important in these uncertain times that we are positive about the contribution that military personnel and those who work in the defence sector bring to our local economies. In Wiltshire, the Royal International Air Tattoo will come to Boscombe Down from next year for the next 25 years. It is a massive opportunity for the people of Salisbury and south Wiltshire to welcome representatives from 30 nations and receive 170,000 visitors over three days. Will the Minister commend RIAT and what it will bring to the south Wiltshire economy?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. RIAT is not just a showcase of the very best in aeronautical engineering from the United Kingdom and our allies but an opportunity to raise good money for RAF charitable funds. It is something that the communities around MOD Boscombe Down will be enormously proud of. We will work closely with RIAT to ensure that the event is a success, just as we worked with RIAT to ensure that the temporary event that took place earlier this year was a success. I am happy to be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman about that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is critical defence and aerospace infrastructure in my constituency and across Northern Ireland that must also be protected. Given that the US felt compelled to disperse vital assets due to perceived vulnerabilities, can the Minister outline what immediate, tangible counter-drone and perimeter upgrades are being deployed across the UK and in Northern Ireland to reassure our allies that British soil is completely safe, especially when we consider the non-existent border that offers no protection from possible threats?
Luke Pollard
I was in Northern Ireland only last week, talking about the industrial opportunities of a growing defence budget that are creating good jobs there. The £750 million that we have set out in the DIP for counter-drone activity and the £470 million for base protection encompass the protection of our bases in every part of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I do not know if the Minister is aware that an emailed bomb hoax caused serious disruption to schools in my constituency yesterday, along with schools in Scotland, Ireland and Italy. Days earlier, there had been serious disruption to flights because of emailed bomb hoaxes. Can he reassure the Chamber that the Ministry of Defence is alive to such hoaxes and will minimise the disruption that they cause to the defence estate?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that really important topic. We must take all threats seriously. I know that was the case in the recent incidents involving the flights, and I am certain it will have been the case with the incidents he has spoken about. We work very closely with police forces right across the United Kingdom. I will ensure that he has an opportunity to sit down with the Security Minister to discuss the matter further, to give him the reassurance he needs.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister will not want to go into detail, for obvious security reasons, and I will not press him on that, but can he reassure the House that not only has he had discussions about the security arrangements at RAF Croughton and RAF Lakenheath, but he is entirely satisfied with those arrangements?
Luke Pollard
I can confirm that Ministers have been discussing the security arrangements—that includes the Minister for the Armed Forces, who takes the lead on operational security, me as lead on industrial security, and the Minister in the House of Lords, who takes the policing role within the Ministry of Defence. We continue to discuss security arrangements with our US friends, and we continue to put new measures in place where the intelligence or threat picture requires us to do so.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Driving past RAF Lossiemouth or the civilian Prestwick airport, one can see military aircraft lined up in serried ranks—transport aircraft, interceptors, maritime patrol aircraft. What consideration has been given to some cheap physical security, such as hardened aircraft shelters or revetments, rather than parking them out in the open air? At the moment, it looks like a Russian drone jockey’s dream.
Luke Pollard
I have seen in person the exceptional work that the aircrews do at RAF Lossiemouth. We have based a number of critical assets there, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take security there very seriously. If he has any particular concerns, I would welcome having a private conversation with him, and perhaps arranging a briefing so that he can be reassured that the Royal Air Force is taking the necessary measures. It is important to say, however, that we cannot remove all risk with these base protection measures, which is why we train our people and give them the tools and skills required to work with our partners to deter and respond to any risks that exist. That is the case across the United Kingdom, and I want to thank everyone involved in those efforts.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, can you confirm for the record that while we have been discussing the extremely important matter of the security of our airfields across the United Kingdom, once again not a single Reform MP has been in the Chamber for any part of the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The right hon. Gentleman is extremely experienced and knows that pointing out who is and is not in the Chamber is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record.
Business of the House
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 16 November will include:
Monday 16 November—Second Reading of the Visitor Levy (England) Bill.
Tuesday 17 November—Remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Wednesday 18 November—Opposition day (sixth allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 19 November—General debate on International Men’s Day, followed by a general debate on the emerging risks of advanced AI. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 November includes:
Monday 23 November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 24 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.
Wednesday 25 November—Opposition day (seventh allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 26 November—General debate on inequalities in cancer care, followed by a general debate on lifelong sex education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 27 November—Private Members’ Bills.
Jesse Norman
In this week of remembrance, we as Members of Parliament, both individually and as a House, solemnly pledge to honour those who have served and sacrificed life and limb for their country, but that pledge carries obligations beyond remembrance itself. Soldiers sent into danger under lawful orders, in life-threatening circumstances, are owed a continuing duty of care by us as their representatives and by the British state. No one is above the law, but justice also requires fairness and protection against repeated oppressive investigations decades after the events concerned.
Some 503 British Army soldiers were killed during the troubles in Northern Ireland, alongside 509 other defence and security personnel. Now the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will expose elderly Northern Ireland veterans to the threat of precisely these repeated oppressive investigations, even where their conduct has already been examined. The safeguards proposed in the Bill do not go remotely far enough to address these concerns, so I ask MPs across the House, as they reaffirm once again their Remembrance Day pledge this week, to consider whether the Bill genuinely honours the obligations that that pledge lays upon them.
To go briefly from the sublime to the ridiculous, on Tuesday the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority migrated my office in Hereford to a new broadband provider—Onecom. My brilliant constituency team of three have worked with me for a combined 47 years all told. They could run a small European country—in some cases at least as effectively as the present Governments. They were not consulted at all about this decision or its implementation. We were given no choice and no agency in the matter. Two days later, my team are still unable to connect to the internet. They have no idea when the internet connection will be in place, and some of them are having to take days off in lieu because they cannot work from the office. The chair and chief executive of IPSA can take these remarks as a formal complaint by me and put in place action this day to address the problem, but could the Leader of the House also ask why IPSA feels the need to control my office connectivity in Hereford from London, and will he ask it to do its job so that we can do ours?
Finally, the Government promised that rail nationalisation would transform our railways for the better. South Western Railway, c2c, Greater Anglia and West Midlands Railway trains are all now under public ownership, but what has actually happened since then? The share of passenger trains arriving at their final destination within five minutes of the scheduled time has fallen rapidly since nationalisation—Greater Anglia from 93% to 90%; c2c from 92% to 84%; West Midlands Railway from 83% to 81%; and South Western Railway from 86% to 80%. All that in less than two years. Rather than better railways, passengers have had more delays, cancellations and uncertainty, while the bill to taxpayers goes up with every delay repayment made.
In Hereford, my brilliant campaigning constituent Cameroon Wood, who uses a wheelchair, has been highlighting the unequal treatment of passengers with disabilities on the railways for years. He is full of praise for the efforts made by West Midlands Railways, but there has been nothing like the improvements to access, signage or enforcement needed—above all for him to get to his beloved Aston Villa matches, but more generally as well. Can the Leader of the House explain why these services are deteriorating, what nationalisation is actually achieving that is worthwhile, and when passengers—able-bodied and with disabilities—can expect the improvements that they have been promised? If not, will he arrange an urgent statement from the Transport Secretary so that she can do so?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me first of all mention the recent shooting in Krakow. This was an horrific act, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the families of those who lost their lives, the injured and everyone affected by this senseless violence.
Remembrance Sunday is our opportunity to remember and pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of all those who defended our freedoms and protect our way of life. Can I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and all the House staff for the events to mark remembrance across Parliament this year?
In that vein, I pay tribute to Matthew “Matt” MacKinnon-Pattison, who died on Thursday 5 November, aged 102. He was the last known surviving world war two veteran of the British Special Air Service and one of hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers who fought the Germans in Italy in the spring of 1944. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his friends and family.
Turning to the issue of veterans support, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have a continuing obligation to servicemen and women. That is part of the reason the Prime Minister wrote to councils across England yesterday to urge them to draw up plans to offer accommodation for veterans sleeping rough ahead of this festive period. The Government are committed to tackling homelessness for good, and people who stepped forward and were prepared to put their lives on the line should never lack a roof over their head.
On other issues of public service, I pay tribute to the leader of Great Yarmouth’s Labour group, Trevor Wainwright, who has died aged 76. Trevor first became a borough councillor in 2002 and later led the council from 2012 to 2015. He gave a long and distinguished service, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences.
Yesterday, the Modernisation Committee launched an inquiry into private Members’ Bills. They are an excellent opportunity for MPs to raise awareness of issues of importance to them and their constituents, and sometimes they change the law. I encourage all interested Members to engage with the inquiry. On wider matters, figures this morning show that the UK economy is growing at the fastest rate in almost 10 years outside the pandemic. Despite a year when events around the world have pushed up costs here at home, our economy is growing, bringing hope for the future. We keep a focus on the things that matter to people most: bringing down bills, creating good jobs and helping businesses to grow.
Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. Before I do so, may I congratulate him on the opening of his play “The Winding Stair”, which is playing to sold-out theatres? We look forward to it coming to the west end—
Sir Alan Campbell
Or, indeed, to the House of Commons. We wish the right hon. Gentleman every success. Of course, he is not the only author in the shadow Cabinet. The shadow Chancellor co-authored the Liz Truss Budget, which did so much damage to the economy. I know that the shadow Chancellor does not like me mentioning that, so I will not say any more.
I turn to the specific points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He has every right to return to the Northern Ireland legacy, having made those points before with great sincerity. The reality is that the previous Government’s approach was rejected by British courts and left our veterans with no real protection. I agree that we owe a great debt to veterans who served and sacrificed to secure peace in Northern Ireland. We strengthened the Bill with a whole package of amendments to provide lasting protection for the armed forces, including protection from repeated investigations. The Royal British Legion has welcomed the amendments that we brought forward to address the concerns that he raises.
I am sure that IPSA will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We all owe a great debt to our constituency teams, who do a fantastic job, so I am sure IPSA will want to provide an answer to his questions.
On his final point about the reliability of railways, one of the most reliable in recent times has been London North Eastern Railway, which has been under Government control for quite some time. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) refers to other railways. Why do we need to bring them under public control? The answer is a botched privatisation. I am sure that many on the Conservative Benches will accept that it was a botched privatisation. As we bring more companies under Government control, it will take time. On reliability, I look forward to GWR coming under Government control in the near future, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does. The issues that he raises on behalf of his constituent, which he is perfectly entitled to do, are real concerns. By getting the railways on to a better footing, I am sure that we can begin to repair some of the damage that privatisation has caused.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
This Labour Government have strongly supported miners’ pensions. Indeed, at the Budget, the Chancellor guaranteed that future miners’ pension scheme funds would go to them. I also welcome his commitment to finish the job by releasing their remaining funds in weeks not months. Can we please have an update from the Chancellor on his discussions with the pension trustees this week and on how that commitment can be delivered?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for mineworkers both in his constituency and across the country, and I thank him for that. I am sure the Chancellor will want to ensure that the House remains updated on this issue, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response from the relevant Treasury Minister so that he can get an update for his constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—congratulations on your promotion.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I associate the Liberal Democrats with the Leader of the House’s remarks about the attack in Poland and about our remembrance events? I look forward to settling into this new role and working with colleagues across the House, especially as we look to modernise.
On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to update the census questions so that they better reflect how constituents see themselves. No one objected—no one—and the Bill has support from across the House, including from the right hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly). Since then, however, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who was in the Chamber on Tuesday and who did not object, has tabled an early-day motion that would seek to undo this cross-party work if it was followed through.
The Liberal Democrats were pleased to hear at Prime Minister’s questions that the Prime Minister is open to a discussion and supportive of the principle, and I am grateful that his office is arranging a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. People should be able to describe their own Englishness in their own words, not have it defined to them by those who want to divide us. Will the Leader of the House join me in backing that principle, and will he tell us what Government time can be found so that the Bill can make progress?
While talking about Englishness, given that Harry Kane will become the record cap holder later today, does the Leader of the House agree that it is surely time for him to become Sir Harry Kane?
Sir Alan Campbell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I look forward to working with him on a range of matters, not least modernisation of this place. I want to put on the record my thanks to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), and wish him well in his new role.
Let me deal with the last point first. If Harry Kane has reached that point and it is felt that he should be recognised in that way, I am sure the usual channels—not in this place but elsewhere—will consider that for the future.
I turn to the main point about the ten-minute rule Bill, which has been introduced. As the Prime Minister said yesterday,
“We must move on from a decade of division”
and
“bring people back together”.—[Official Report, 11 November 2026; Vol. 793, c. 165.]
We will work in a cross-party way with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. With regard to the early-day motion, of course, not everyone shares that ambition for our country. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) is perfectly entitled to put down an early-day motion and put his side of this issue, if that is what he seeks to do. I do not think there is anything disorderly about that in any way, shape or form, but I have to say that people outside will judge him for that.
As for what will happen with the Bill, it would not be fair for the Government to give priority to this Bill because that would be unfair to other Bills in the process. We will have to see how it goes in the future, but what I would point out to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) is that this is an important beginning to a process. Sometimes these issues take quite a while to get there, but the Government are prepared, as he has said, to work as far as we can with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) on these matters.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Eddie Bisknell is our Derbyshire local democracy reporter, and while he always gives me my fair share of robust scrutiny, I deeply value his enormous contribution to our community. You can imagine our horror then, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Reform Derbyshire county council recently announced a refusal to engage with Eddie. While I understand that its engagement ban has now lifted after a large national backlash, will the Leader of the House join me in condemning Reform’s press bans and make time for a debate on press freedom in the local democracy reporting service?
Sir Alan Campbell
I want to put on record our recognition of the important contribution that local democracy reporters make in holding councils to account. The reality is that Reform UK in Derbyshire was running scared of basic scrutiny, and that tells us everything we need to know about its fitness—or rather, lack of fitness—for public office. The Government take these matters seriously, and my hon. Friend may wish to raise his concerns in the debate on the Nolan principles later today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for hosting a Diwali event in Speaker’s House last night.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, on Thursday 19 November there will be a statement from the Education Committee on its report, and on Thursday 26 November there will be a statement from the Transport Committee on its report. Given that the second debate on 19 November is on the emerging risks of advanced AI and was squeezed out on a previous occasion, would the Leader of the House consider giving that debate some form of protected time, to ensure that the large number of Members who want to speak are able to do so?
In addition, the business in Westminster Hall is as follows. On 17 November, there will be a debate on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. On Thursday 19 November, there will be a debate on support in the NHS for patients with learning disabilities, followed by a debate on inequalities in access to therapy for disabled children. On Tuesday 24 November, there will be a debate on the role of an MP, and on Thursday 26 November there will be a debate on access to stroke services in remote areas, followed by a debate on Islamophobia Awareness Month. On Tuesday 1 December, there will be a debate on nursing staff.
I gently remind the Leader of the House that we are still one down on the Backbench Business Committee. That is very important, because a number of colleagues are away from the estate on parliamentary business next week, and the quorum for our meetings is very tight.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that executions of political prisoners in Iran are frequent. Indeed, Iran is the centre of executions of people who just want to stand up for their human rights. Later this evening, I shall be presenting the Magnitsky award for outstanding human rights activist to Mohammad Javad Vafaei Sani. He has been in prison in Iran for six years for his part in the protests of 2019. He is on death row for the simple reason that he is a political protester. Can we have a statement to this House from a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister on what the Government will do to call out not only this potential execution but all the other potential executions of prisoners in Iran?
Sir Alan Campbell
On the matter of the business for 19 November, I will certainly look at how best to protect the time. That includes whether we need statements at the start of the day, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a balance between keeping the House informed of important matters and ensuring there is sufficient time. I will also think about protected time, but as I have said to him before, having protected time is not the panacea we sometimes think it is, because it can lead to false assumptions about what can be allowed at the beginning of the day, and it does not always help.
As for the Labour Member on the Backbench Business Committee, I put my hands up and apologise sincerely to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I take these matters seriously, and I apologise that we have not been able to fill that space, but discussions are ongoing, and we hope to be able to appoint a member soon.
On human rights in Iran, I know the hon. Gentleman takes these matters extremely seriously. There is abhorrence at the surge in executions of political prisoners in Iran. The Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. Iran’s consistently high rate of executions is a deliberate attempt to instil fear and stifle dissent. He is right to stand up against that, and the Government stand up against that. I will raise his specific concern with the FCDO and get him a response.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House agree that this House should find time to celebrate people who perform kind actions in the name of animal welfare? That includes people like Donna Dickie from Clackmannan, who found a neglected dog, Roxy, who was suffering with a tumour on her side, as well as being seriously underweight. Because of Donna’s intervention, Roxy is now in good health and living her best life. She is even the star of a 2027 calendar, with the proceeds going towards saving the lives of shelter dogs in Romania.
Sir Alan Campbell
Absolutely, and we should do that not only because Donna has done an important thing, and but because, as we all know from our postbags, there is a great deal of care and sympathy for matters of animal welfare among our constituents. I thank Donna for what she has done, and I am delighted that Roxy is making a recovery and raising funds for an important cause at the same time.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I recently convened a meeting of North Yorkshire council, the mayor’s office and TransPennine Express, to discuss the shortage of car parking at Northallerton train station. I have written to relevant Ministers, because there is some confusion about the combined authority using the local transport grant to fund the proposed solution. Does the Leader of the House agree with me about the importance of parking at a key train station serving a large rural area? Will he join me in encouraging all parties to work constructively together to find a solution for our local community?
Sir Alan Campbell
Indeed I will, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all his work on this important matter, because it is important to his constituents. I am aware that he has written to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport, and my office will be willing and happy to follow that up and ensure a resolution about the funding. I encourage everyone to work together to bring about the solution that he seeks.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Dudley will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Dudley winter ales fayre. I thank the Campaign for Real Ale in Dudley and South Staffordshire, which is celebrating 50 years, and its chairman, John Corser, for all the fantastic work they do to celebrate real ale. Will my right hon. Friend join me in raising a glass to all the volunteers and breweries, and will he agree to a debate on that?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of John Corser, and all members of Dudley and South Staffordshire CAMRA. It sounds like a fantastic event, and I thank all volunteers up and down the country who are involved—as I have said before, volunteers are the golden thread that runs through our communities. I encourage my hon. Friend to look to secure a Westminster Hall debate on these matters, so that she can hear from a Minister directly about what help we are giving to support local breweries.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Saturday 14 November is World Diabetes Day, and it is estimated that around 6 million people in the UK live with diabetes. The theme this year is early diagnosis and risk reduction, and I encourage Ministers to consider my ten-minute rule Bill, the Type 1 Diabetes Screening (Children) Bill, about an early screening programme for children. Will the Leader of the House join me in helping to raise awareness among our constituents about the signs of diabetes, particularly type-1 diabetes, which are the four Ts—thirst, tiredness, thin and toilet—so we can ensure that people get the lifesaving treatment they need when they are first diagnosed?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Lady in giving attention to World Diabetes Day and the important work done by Diabetes UK. I have had a personal family interest in these matters for some years, and I know the importance of early diagnosis and the effect that diabetes can have if it is not diagnosed and treated properly. I will certainly look at the hon. Lady’s ten-minute rule Bill and draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister, and I thank her for raising that matter.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Our Government rightly abolished no-fault evictions, but the St James estate in Bermondsey is probably the last in the country to receive section 21 orders, and its rogue landlord, BMR St James, is trying to evict almost 30 families before Christmas. Those families have sadly been let down by Southwark council, which failed to deliver promised legal support, and a Green/Lib Dem coalition cabinet member has broken his commitment even to meet the people affected. Will the Government provide time to debate further penalties to tackle dodgy landlords such as BMR, and examine how councils are implementing, or failing to use, new powers to fine landlords who break rules and harass tenants?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that Southwark council will meet all the people affected by the concerning issues raised by my hon. Friend. As he points out, the Government have passed the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: it is now in force, banning no fault evictions and improving the system for millions of private renters in England, with tough penalties for landlords who breach their duties. I know my hon. Friend will not let go on these matters, as he is an assiduous campaigner in his constituency, but I encourage him to apply for a debate on these matters so that we can understand what further support tenants need to tackle rogue landlords.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Last month, the Health Secretary assured the House that corridor care was being measured, but this week an ITV investigation revealed that the real levels of corridor care are likely to be much higher than official figures suggest. The report included the story of an elderly cancer patient who was treated in a cupboard for about 48 hours. The issue is not just about privacy and dignity, but about patient safety, because corridor care means it is possible to miss conditions, such as sepsis. We cannot end the scandal that is corridor care unless we accurately measure how many people are receiving it. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Health Secretary to give a statement about how we will accurately measure corridor care, so we can take steps to tackle it?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman takes these matters seriously, but I assure him that the Health Secretary takes these matters seriously too. I will arrange for an update from her and her team to address the important issues that he has raised. There are often individual cases that are indefensible, but it is important that the Government are committed to improving the general direction of travel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I urge Back Benchers to keep their questions short.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
A constituent of mine relies on Ramipril to tackle his high blood pressure, but because of national shortages he is having to run between his local GP surgery and pharmacies in order to get his medication, while working full time, which is having a detrimental effect on his mental health. Will the Leader of the House ask the Department of Health and Social Care what is being done to improve supply chain resilience against shortages of vital and common drugs such as Ramipril, and to ensure that our constituents are properly supported when there are drug shortages?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Our 10-year health plan sets out how to improve access to healthcare for everyone, putting patients first but ensuring there is sustainable access to medicines. I will ensure the Department of Health and Social Care looks into the specific issue he raises and gives him an update.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Some £12 million of taxpayers’ money was allocated to Keighley to help build a new health hub in the centre of our town. That money was given to Keighley through the Keighley town fund nearly six years ago, with a top up of additional funds from the levelling-up fund three years ago. However, because of the sheer incompetence of the last Labour-run administration, the project was not progressed, and under the new Reform administration, the same lethargic approach has continued. Last week, we heard that the project may not go ahead at all due to time running out. Will the Leader of the House assist me in getting an urgent meeting with the relevant Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as one has already been requested, so that we can get to the bottom of this and ensure the health hub is not cancelled as a result of Bradford council’s ineptitude?
Sir Alan Campbell
The short answer is yes, I will. However, I caution the hon. Gentleman when he talks about money that was committed five or six years ago by the previous Government, because there may have been a commitment but there was rarely any money. The difference is that this Government are making commitments and we are funding them, although he raises an important point.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Small businesses are the backbone of our local economy in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, and we have so many that we can be proud of. That is why I am asking residents to nominate their favourite shops, cafés, pubs and, being a Stokie MP, our oatcake shops, for my small business awards. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging residents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove to nominate their favourite local businesses for the awards?
Sir Alan Campbell
I welcome my hon. Friend’s initiative to celebrate local enterprise. Independent shops, cafés and pubs are the backbone of our local economies, and I am pleased to join him in encouraging people across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove to nominate the local businesses that make a real difference to their neighbourhood.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Earlier this week, The Guardian reported on extensive communications over several months between the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), and the UK head of Palantir—I must advise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I informed the Member’s office that I would mention him. Information obtained from freedom of information requests reveals the extent of covert political lobbying conducted by Palantir and its bedfellows, some of whom are senior figures in the Labour party. The lobbying is designed to extend the reach of the federated data platform into primary care and to ensure that the brake clause available next year is not employed. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how we—I say “we” because I mean Members on both sides of the House—can obtain a debate on this subject, so that the full nature of the contract and this disreputable provider can be exposed?
Sir Alan Campbell
The contract for the NHS federated data platform was awarded through a competitive procurement process; the supplier contract will be reviewed in line with standard contract management processes, and the outcome will be announced in the normal way in due course. The hon. Gentleman has every right to raise these matters. If he wishes to hear from a Health Minister directly, I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Plans for Drakelow 1 and 2 AI data centres, which are part of the midlands supercluster, far exceed the original proposals on the current site of Drakelow power station. They would encroach into countryside and— alongside solar, farm and battery storage—encircle the village of Walton-on-Trent. However, just up the road is the old Willington power station site, which has been redundant for decades and is crying out for its 227 acres to be redeveloped. My understanding is that the application will go in as a nationally significant infrastructure project, and so inevitably directly to the Secretary of State, effectively disabling any input from local people. Will the Leader of the House therefore help me to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister so I can raise my concerns?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I understand it, applications have not been submitted for Drakelow 1 and 2, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the prospective applications. The NSIP process does provide opportunities for local communities to make their views known, but as my hon. Friend asks, I will ask the relevant Minister to meet her.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the controversy around sodium valproate and the lack of clarity over what is going to happen following the Hughes report of February 2024. In an Adjournment debate just two weeks ago, the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), said that a decision on financial redress has not been made. Will the Leader of the House urgently make time for a statement from a Health Minister on this important matter? I know from my experience of working on the infected blood compensation scheme that the longer these matters are delayed, the worse the cost and the distress caused will be.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is right to warn of how these situations can progress and become worse over time, but he also knows that it is important that we get things right. I will take up the matter with the relevant Minister and see whether we can get not just the decision, but the update that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I was proud to nominate the frailty service at County hospital in Stafford for a national parliamentary award after seeing the outstanding work it is doing in helping older patients to get the right care at the right time and avoid unnecessary stays in hospital. The service has now been shortlisted as one of four nationally. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the team and—I am sure—recommending that it should win the award? Can we also have a debate on how the NHS could better recognise and replicate successful local innovation in the NHS?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is rightly proud of the achievements of County hospital, and I pay tribute to all the staff who contribute to the exemplary service in Stafford and to staff across our NHS. I wish the service well for the parliamentary pathfinder NHS innovation adoption awards, as I do the other services that are shortlisted. This would be a good topic for an Adjournment debate, which could demonstrate the unique successes of local NHS services.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)
Earlier this week, a Reform politician in the Senedd, Joe Martin, was barred from speaking after raising fair concerns about projections showing that the white British population will become a minority by 2063. As the saying goes, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is fundamentally changing the demographic make-up of our country. Does the Leader of the House agree that the demographic change forced upon our population must be subject to genuine democratic debate and scrutiny, and will he make time in this House for a full debate?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have never seen the hon. Gentleman as a revolutionary, I have to say, but the points he makes about representation by elected officials are a matter for the Senedd. As he will know, there is a debate later on the Nolan principles, and he may wish to raise some points during that debate, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
If booking a medical appointment requires the help of a son or granddaughter —assuming there is one—the system has failed. A 92-year-old constituent who is hard of hearing and speaks perfect English struggles to book GP appointments by phone, and he is sent away when he attempts to book at the surgery in person. That is not innovation, but digital exclusion. Technology should serve people, not determine who is entitled to dignity. Reasonable adjustments must always be an option. Will the Leader of the House help to ensure that the older generation, or those with disabilities, are not being left behind as healthcare access becomes increasingly digitalised?
Sir Alan Campbell
Digital healthcare should improve access to care, not create new barriers, but unfortunately, that is what we have in the example that my hon. Friend gives. I am sure there will be examples in other constituencies, too. The digital exclusion risk atlas helps to identify digital exclusion risks, while the inclusive digital healthcare framework supports services to address barriers such as accessibility, skills and confidence. I will draw his concerns specifically to the attention of Ministers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Questions are far too long. I ask Members to cross out most of what they have written, and will the Leader of the House please be as sharp as he can?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Ahead of Road Safety Week and this Sunday’s service of remembrance for road traffic victims, will the Leader of the House set aside time for a debate on road safety, including how technologies such as intervening intelligent speed assistance could help reduce repeat speeding offences and prevent more families from suffering the devastating loss of a loved one?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Lady will know that the Government introduced the road safety strategy and that we take these matters seriously. An Adjournment debate, should she seek one, would perhaps be a way to explore the important matters that she raises.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Tatenhill is a tiny village in the north of my constituency, but it has a big problem with road safety. Staffordshire county council has promised to install traffic-calming measures and even secured a developer payment in April 2022 under the Conservatives. The council committed to undertaking works within 12 months of that, but failed to do so. Since 2025, when Reform took over the council, it has continued to fail to do the works. There have been serious crashes in the village over the past year, including a car crashing into a house and another hitting multiple vehicles parked by the primary school. Does the Leader of the House agree that Staffordshire county council must stop dragging its heels, get its thumb out and get it done? Will he make time for a debate on the consequences for councils that fail to undertake work that they are legally committed to doing?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that the council has not just heard what my hon. Friend has said today, but takes the action that he seeks. I can assure the council that he is a doughty campaigner for his constituents and will not give up until it takes action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Reading the question super-fast does not make the question any shorter. Victoria Collins is no longer here, so I call Ben Maguire.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Cornwall continues to face a housing crisis, and my Airbnb Bill, which I am presenting later today, would require planning permission before a family home can be turned into a holiday let, in much the same way as planning is required to turn a house into a shop or another commercial business. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time on reforming the change of use rules, so that councils in areas that have acute housing shortages, such as Cornwall, can finally regulate the housing sector to ensure that everyone has a safe place to live?
Sir Alan Campbell
No, I cannot commit to that, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman can follow up his Bill with a request for a debate where he can continue to campaign on those matters, because they are important for his area and elsewhere. I am sure the Government will want to do everything we can to help.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know how proud I am of the Lionesses, particularly Georgia Stanway, who was born and raised in Barrow and Furness. This Government’s £220 million transformation fund has given us the opportunity to unlock Football Foundation match funding that could bring forward additional all-weather pitches, with one named for Georgia. Unfortunately, delays in Westmorland and Furness council could lead to us losing that match funding, with the deadline expiring on Sunday. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Lib Dem-run council should pull its finger out and get this delivered?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree that we should take pride in the success of the Lionesses. The Government are committed to supporting access to grassroots sport, so I encourage my hon. Friend’s local authority to provide the funding that she refers to, ensuring that the pitches are built in Barrow so that the Lionesses of the future will have every opportunity to succeed.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
There was a good commitment in the Budget for the guest beer agreement to be placed in the pub code. That would be a massive boost for pubs in Skipton and Ripon, and across Britain, and for independent brewers. Will the Leader of the House use his massive authority within Government to push that through in the code as quickly as possible? Publicans across the country would welcome him with open arms at any time.
Sir Alan Campbell
I follow the right hon. Gentleman on his social media, which looks as if he is on a pub crawl from time to time, but I am sure that is for all the right reasons. I will do everything that I can to get the outcome that he seeks, despite my limited influence in these matters.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The global debt crisis is trapping low-income countries in a cycle of poverty. According to the World Bank, since 2022, private lenders have received over $141 billion more in debt servicing costs from developing economies than they have lent. As we look ahead to the UK’s presidency of the G20, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the global debt crisis?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Foreign Secretary has called for a new deal on debt to support countries to repay over longer time horizons, and for refinancing with better rates to give developing countries precious fiscal space. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears my hon. Friend’s words, and I am sure that this issue would make for a popular Westminster Hall debate.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a £100 energy rebate to help people with their winter fuel. One of my concerns comes off the back of a response to a written parliamentary question, in which a Minister said that the rebate would apply only to people who pay council tax. That means that people such as students, people who live in houses in multiple occupation or people getting a waiver on their council tax because they are terminally ill might have to go without the £100 energy support. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to make sure that is not the case?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman draws attention to one of the very popular measures in a very popular Budget, and I will take away what he has said. It is important that, when this money lands, the maximum number of people get the maximum amount of benefit.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
A historic American shipwreck off Tregonhawke beach in my constituency, the SS James Eagan Layne, has become a popular diving site and an important part of our local heritage. However, it continues to leak oil during severe storms, affecting a local surf school—a favourite of mine—and other maritime users. Temporary repairs have been carried out, but they have not provided a lasting solution. With responsibility for the wreck unclear, we risk being left in a cycle of pollution. Will the Leader of the House support me in working with the Department for Transport to establish responsibility, secure a permanent solution and explore whether our allies could contribute towards the cost? That would help to protect the seas and to safeguard local businesses and the local Ministry of Defence training facility without the UK taxpayer shouldering the full cost.
Sir Alan Campbell
As a coastal MP, I know how important local maritime heritage and the state of our seas are to our residents and to residents further afield. The Government take maritime pollution and the protection of local marine systems very seriously. I will ensure that Ministers in the Department for Transport are aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns; if she wants to have a meeting with them, I will help to arrange one.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Over the last few years, dozens of people have tragically been killed on the A1 between Dunbar and Morpeth. More than 15,000 people have signed a petition, which has been presented to Downing Street, calling on the Government to take urgent safety measures on the road. Will the Leader of the House help to set up a meeting between a Transport Minister, myself and the action group to ensure that we can have a discussion about how we can make the road as safe as possible and save lives?
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Last week, over 100 of my constituents received a letter saying that the building they were living in was going to be sold and that they would have to move in the new year—this being in winter in Scotland and during Edinburgh’s housing crisis. I understand that, following meetings with me and a big backlash from local residents, that move has been postponed, but people do not know for how long, or what their situation is. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate about protecting people and giving them assurance in their homes, and will he work with the Scottish Government, because, of course, housing policy is devolved in Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have legislated through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to protect renters in England, but as my hon. Friend says, housing is a devolved matter. I hope the Scottish Government will take action on his concerns; if not, I am sure he will continue to find ways to keep raising this issue until a resolution is found.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Schools across Wokingham are struggling to support pupils with special educational needs and disabilities because funding is not keeping pace with rising demand. As budgets come under pressure, teaching assistants are often the first to go. I know the Leader of the House has been asked this many times before, but will he make time for a debate on properly funding SEND reform and support in schools?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the current system is widely regarded as having been broken, and the Government are committed to bringing forward legislation on these matters. When we do so, there will be ample opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise his specific concerns. On the wider issue, more money is going into schools, but I appreciate that in some cases, the budgets are pretty tight.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
My constituent Heather has been harassed for years, often by men shouting from passing cars, and grabbed three times while out running in her community. Heather is determined to see this disgusting and criminal behaviour ended through the adoption in Scotland of the Jog On campaign, which has enabled police, councils and communities in parts of England to tackle this issue. Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting between the relevant Minister and Heather and the Jog On campaign, to discuss how we can end the harassment of women and girls in all public spaces?
Sir Alan Campbell
These are issues that the Government take very seriously, and I will do everything I can to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend seeks.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am sure the Leader of the House shared my delight as Bridlington Town defeated Curzon Ashton on penalties in the first round of the FA trophy. This Saturday at 3 o’clock, they will welcome the mighty Macclesfield in the second round—a truly David versus Goliath clash. The good news, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that I have two tickets in my pocket, and I wonder whether the Leader of the House would like to make time on Saturday afternoon to join me at Brid Town and give himself a brief respite from watching Sunderland.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am looking around the Chamber to see whether my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) is present before I answer. I was delighted to see the hon. Gentleman’s team progress; unfortunately, my diary for the weekend is already somewhat full, but I will give thought to whether we can join forces at a future game—hopefully one in which his team continue to progress.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in my constituency is one of only two tropical medicine institutions in the UK and the longest established, dating back to 1898. It now faces £24 million of cuts over the next three years and significant redundancies, due in part to the reduction of research funding. At a time when infectious diseases continue to have a global impact, those cuts risk lifesaving research and the loss of highly skilled jobs. Will the Leader of the House grant time to debate the impact that cuts to research funding have on world-class institutions such as LSTM?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the valuable research it does. We will shortly be commissioning an independent review to provide advice on how specialist research providers should be recognised within the Research England funding framework in order to make sure those providers’ contributions are reflected in future funding decisions, but I will ask Ministers to write to my hon. Friend with further details about the issues she raises.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this week, I attended a drop-in session organised by Cardiac Risk in the Young to show my support for the introduction of a screening programme that could save the lives of the 12 young people who die each week with undiagnosed heart issues. Whenever we go to these sessions, for whichever illness, we are told that early diagnosis and screening would not only save lives but save money for the NHS in the future. What assessments are carried out by the Department to determine whether those savings actually exist? It would be helpful if a Minister could come to the Chamber to explain.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising awareness of this serious issue. The Government are committed to shifting resources in the NHS from sickness to prevention, as is set out in our 10-year health plan and the new cardiovascular disease modern service framework. I am happy to raise those specific questions about funding assessments with the Department. As he will know—indeed, as any Minister or ex-Minister will know—it is difficult to shift resources from dealing with a particular problem that shows itself now towards prevention, but that is exactly what the Government want to do.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
During Storm Boelo, the new natural flood defence scheme at Brampton Fell farm protected homes in the town of Brampton by holding back half a million litres of floodwater every single hour. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Phil Furneaux from Brampton 2 Zero, farmer Alan Bowman and all the partners involved in delivering that brilliant community scheme?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved in the Brampton flood defence project, protecting their local community from flooding. I want to pay particular attention to the work of farmers in this regard. We have announced the largest programme tackling flooding in history, with £10.5 billion up to 2036 protecting 890,000 homes and businesses. I will ask the relevant Minister to give my hon. Friend an update and, if necessary, to update the House.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Despite wide agreement across the House in the debate on assisted dying that end-of-life care should be prioritised and resourced sufficiently, Princess Alice hospice in my constituency—one of the leading names in hospice care—has just announced that it must find £3.5 million of savings a year, which will see some of its services stopped completely or made smaller. Princess Alice provides care across Kingston, Richmond and much of Surrey, but NHS funding covers just 23% of its costs. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the long-term sustainability of hospices given their importance to the House and, seemingly, to the Prime Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is right to raise not only the importance of hospices—we are grateful for the important work they do—but the challenges they face. The Government have provided support for hospices, but I accept that many still find it difficult. The answer in the longer term is to reform social care, and the Prime Minister is committed to doing that.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Westhoughton Assist Service, based at the John Holt community centre in my constituency, provides vital support to vulnerable people, with food packages, clothing and referrals. As we approach the festive season, it is collecting toys for its Christmas appeal so that every child across Westhoughton can have a truly magical Christmas day. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the hard work of Lesley Monks and the whole team at Westhoughton Assist who provide invaluable support to families all year round?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in recognising the hard work of Lesley Monks and everyone at Westhoughton Assist in supporting families throughout the year, but particularly as we approach Christmas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House please ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the repeated attacks and destruction of property belonging to the Catholic diocese of Gboko, which led to the closure of a hospital, a care centre, and primary and secondary schools, in Benue state in Nigeria? What representations are the Government making to urge the Nigerian authorities to protect religious institutions, their staff and the communities they serve from further violence, and to hold those responsible to account for their actions?
Sir Alan Campbell
The UK Government condemn the attacks that took place on 6 November. We continually and regularly engage with the Nigerian Government, religious leaders and civil society to promote freedom of religion or belief. Through the UK-Nigeria security and defence partnership, we are working with Nigeria to tackle shared security challenges. We have the £38 million strengthening peace and resilience in Nigeria programme, which will allow local answers to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I will also draw his words to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
Heritage buildings play a crucial role in shaping the character of the places where we live, which is why I am incredibly proud to have supported the revival of both Rochford’s Freight House and Southend’s Kursaal, recently securing a £540,000 grant to future-proof the latter’s iconic domed roof. Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for a debate on the role of heritage assets in regeneration so that hon. Members across the House can share examples from their communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will know, through our £1.5 billion arts everywhere fund we are backing the protection of historic buildings and the revival of heritage assets for modern community use. I encourage him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, because I am sure that examples from not just his constituency but others deserve to be heard.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Specialist organisations, including in the violence against women and girls sector, have warned that the Government’s earned settlement proposals will undermine even their own objectives on child poverty, modern slavery, domestic abuse and homelessness. Those organisations are asking for the proposals to be withdrawn. Since the Home Secretary’s statement last week, we are still yet to see an impact assessment. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Parliament is given sufficient time to debate these multifaceted harms and impacts well before the changes are due to take effect?
Sir Alan Campbell
These are important matters, and I understand that they do cause concern across constituencies, and indeed in particular communities, but, as I have just announced, we will have regular opportunities to discuss these matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will take part in those debates.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Rossendale remains the only local authority area in a north without a commuter rail link, despite being only 15 miles from central Manchester. The line still exists and just needs reinstating as a commuter service. That would be a game changer for Rossendale and the economy of east Lancashire and is exactly the sort of scheme that would increase the economic impact of Northern Powerhouse Rail, yet its progress is agonisingly slow and faces multiple hurdles. Does the Leader of the House agree that if we are to deliver good growth in every postcode, we must prioritise connecting our towns as much as our cities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate my hon. Friend, because yesterday he got a commitment from the Prime Minister to meet the reindustrialisation research group on these matters. As we advance our reindustrialisation agenda, we need to ensure that there is reliable and joined-up transport infrastructure for everyone across England. I will ensure that the Transport Secretary has heard his representations.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Before I ask my substantive question, I wonder if the Leader of the House will join me in wishing a speedy recovery to two adults and four pupils of Hyndland secondary school who are recovering from injuries received when a car mounted a pavement on Tuesday afternoon in my constituency, and in thanking the emergency services for their prompt action in responding to the incident.
Will the Leader of the House provide an update on the likely publication date for the findings of the review of access to banking services? Constituents in areas like Anniesland in Glasgow West, where there are no banks, eagerly await its findings.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House sends its best wishes for a full recovery to everyone injured in the incident in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I join her in thanking the emergency services for their swift response.
Turning to banking hubs, we have rolled out 230 banking hubs and are working with the industry to open 350 by the end of this Parliament. The Government commissioned the independent review on access to banking services in May and will publish the findings of that in due course.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Blackpool is ranked second nationally for abandoned buildings. I know that the Leader of the House, as a fellow coastal MP, sees and feels at first hand the impact of derelict and empty properties on towns like ours. The £1.35 million that the Government have given Blackpool from the derelict buildings fund will build on the work of the council’s empty properties taskforce, launched earlier this year by the council’s leader, Lynn Williams. I want residents and business to help us shape what we prioritise. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging residents to complete my survey so that we can take their priorities directly to Blackpool council’s empty properties taskforce in two weeks?
Sir Alan Campbell
As a coastal MP, I absolutely understand what my hon. Friend is saying about empty properties, which are a concern everywhere but take on a particular significance in coastal towns. I am delighted about the funding that he has secured for Blackpool; he is a doughty campaigner for that fantastic town. I certainly encourage his constituents to complete the survey, which will help put power back in the hands of local people, who, after all, know best.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
After many months of hard work, we finally have year-round citizen science water testing up and running in Worthing, to test water quality, identify sites of pollution and give sea swimmers confidence as they enjoy our fantastic coast. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking and congratulating Mark and Karl from East Worthing’s Muscle Beach Swimmers Club, Councillors Vicki Wells and Martin McCabe, South Downs Leisure and all those who have been instrumental in bringing forward this fantastic project?
Sir Alan Campbell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend has been an ardent campaigner on cleaning up our waterways, and I pay tribute to him for that. I join him in congratulating Mark, Karl and everyone involved in the community initiative to which he refers on giving their time in service to cleaning up their local community.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The TV drama “Heartbeat”, featuring a policeman based in 1960s “Aidensfield” delighted millions of viewers, so it is slightly ironic that, in 2026, residents in the real village, Goathland, cannot make emergency calls during power cuts, as their mobile phone mast has no battery. As EE has told me that it has no plans to install one, will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting between me, the relevant Minister and EE to help ensure that my citizens can make 999 calls that actually connect?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter, because access to emergency services is a vital lifeline for our communities. There are statutory obligations on communications providers to ensure that their networks and services remain available. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport works with industry and Ofcom to ensure that learning from significant outages are captured and assessed. Ministers from DCMS will have heard her concerns today, but I will also point out that on Wednesday 18 November there is a Westminster Hall debate on connectivity in rural areas.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Research by Best for Britain shows strong support for a closer relationship with the EU, with many voters citing improving trade and the economy as motivating factors. The Prime Minister is due to meet EU leaders next week, when I am sure he will speak about opening new deals to support industry and growth. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the merits of a closer relationship with the EU?
Sir Alan Campbell
I see that the Prime Minister at the time of the referendum was offering advice to our Prime Minister about the way forward on Europe, which I find somewhat ironic. Next week’s UK-EU summit is an opportunity to strike important deals, to boost the economy, to cut red tape, to help businesses grow and to provide opportunities for young people. We have announced that we will introduce a European partnership Bill, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be ample opportunity to discuss this important matter.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is my privilege and duty to speak on behalf of the people of Bishop Auckland. One way I can do that is by questioning Ministers in this place, but with more and more issues being devolved, there is no mechanism for Members of Parliament to hold regional mayors to account. Will the Leader of the House give some thought to creating regional committees, so that we can scrutinise the work of devolved authorities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely committed to outlining our vision for devolution in England and delivering good growth in every part of the United Kingdom, but my hon. Friend raises a really important matter: how mayors are held to account and scrutinised. Parliament has a really important role in scrutinising both the operation of the devolution system and the stewardship of public money, and I can assure him that these matters are being discussed at the heart of Government.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Trail hunting is a shameless cover for the barbaric practice of foxhunting, and the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to ban it. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm when it will publish the response to the consultation that ended in June, so that the Government can make good on their pledge and bring forward an effective and enforceable ban?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to introducing an effective ban on trail hunting and, as my hon. Friend says, we have consulted on how best to take the ban forward. The consultation received 184,000 responses, and DEFRA plans to publish a summary of responses as soon as possible.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the staff and students at Avon Valley school and performing arts college on essentially winning an Oscar—the 2026 national school theatre award for best musical—for their amazing rendition of “Everybody’s Talking About Jamie”? Does he agree that we need more time to debate the amazing work of our students and schools in ensuring that the creative arts are at the heart of what they do and what we do in our communities across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are a proud champion of the arts, and I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Elisa Wheatley and everyone involved at the Avon Valley school and performing arts college on their rendition of “Everyone’s Talking About Jamie”. It is a considerable achievement, and I congratulate each and every one of them.
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the wider region.
With Gaza entering its fourth winter of conflict, last weekend’s heavy rain and strong winds have made the intolerable humanitarian situation even worse for Palestinian civilians. Like so many others, I was horrified by the scenes. Flooding has damaged displacement sites, tents and buildings, including hospitals and schools. According to our humanitarian partners on the ground, more than 152,000 people have been affected, with over 6,000 shelters destroyed, 17,400 damaged and nearly 4,000 households left without shelter.
Three children and their mother were killed when a sand embankment collapsed on their tents. The cumulative impact, as well as the immediate impact, is appalling. For more than three years, families have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods, and many have had to move again and again in search of safety. Meanwhile, civilian deaths continue, with more than 1,600 killed since the so-called ceasefire alone, and Gazans have been kettled into around 30% of their territory.
The reality on the ground is heartbreaking, yet we knew this was coming. The UN and non-governmental organisations have raised the alarm for months. Donors, including ourselves, geared up for it and put in support for aid agencies ahead of time, but restrictions on access to vital supplies and machinery have hampered preparations for winter. According to the UN, over 150,000 tents and 300,000 tarpaulins that humanitarian partners and donors purchased are outside Gaza, ready to go in, yet the Israeli authorities have prevented these items from entering. They also continue to block timber from entering, leaving no emergency shelter kits available in Gaza. This is shameful. The problem is not simply whether the international community can provide help; it is whether that help can reach the people who need it. I have a very simple and direct message to the Israeli authorities: let the aid in.
This is only the first storm of winter, and there will be more. The UN has said that new tents alone will not protect people from flooding. Gaza urgently needs machinery and tools for drainage and rubble removal, and this is unilaterally in the Government of Israel’s control. As the occupying power, there are strict legal obligations that Israel must obey. We have repeatedly pressed it to prepare for winter and to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, in line with international law. At the UN General Assembly, the UK brought international partners together behind a call to action on humanitarian access and healthcare. Today, again in New York, we will bring together multiple international partners once again to reinforce that pressure.
Our immediate asks of the Government of Israel are clear: open crossing points, starting with Erez in northern Gaza; allow additional days for dual-use items to enter; and reduce the list of those items, so that vital medicines, medical equipment, and materials for tents and shelter can reach the people who need them. I saw with my own eyes items for which I could see no reasonable ground for refusing entry. The Israeli Government must also allow access for journalists, diplomats and Foreign Ministers, so that the world can see the scale of what is happening.
I am shocked by reports overnight that an Israeli airstrike on the Nasser hospital in southern Gaza has killed at least six people. So many healthcare workers and humanitarians have lost their lives and faced peril trying to alleviate suffering in Gaza. I am thinking in particular of those, including the brave British nationals, who lost their lives in the World Central Kitchen attack.
In recent months, officials at the British embassy in Tel Aviv have pressed the Israeli authorities to take the action needed to prepare Gaza for winter. On Monday, officials again met those at the Israeli embassy in London to reinforce the urgent need for action. We call on all parties to the conflict to allow aid to enter Gaza and get to the people who need it.
I am sorry to say that in recent weeks, the flow of aid and essential goods into Gaza has been repeatedly disrupted. Commercial deliveries were temporarily suspended in September following reports of Hamas taxation. On 3 November, the Israeli authorities closed the Egypt corridor for six days over allegations of smuggling, cutting off an essential lifeline to Gazans. I have been to the Egypt warehouses myself and seen the stockpiles of essential aid waiting to get in. The UN chief for humanitarian affairs, Tom Fletcher, and other international counterparts have said that there is no excuse for this. The law is clear that civilians should get the aid they need and should not be punished, and that that should not be subject to political negotiations. The UK Government will not stand by, but will keep working with our partners to press for the restrictions to be lifted.
I am proud that our Government and our support have already made a difference. We provided UNICEF with £14 million this year to support nutrition, child protection, health, water and sanitation, and preparation for winter, but we must do more. Today, I can announce that we are releasing a further £5 million from our bilateral budget to UNICEF, which will be focused on the winter response, including the impact of flooding over the weekend. Overall, UK support will make a tangible difference to the people of Gaza, aiming to provide winter clothing for 100,000 children, tarpaulins for 62,500 people, family tents for 1,250 households and blankets for 150,000 people.
Last month, the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ pooled fund, to which the UK is a significant contributor, provided $45 million for winter supplies, and when the flooding hit, OCHA was able to respond quickly and help families in displacement sites. Through our £88 million of humanitarian funding this financial year, we expect to provide healthcare for up to 900,000 people, safe water for 150,000 people, and rehabilitation and prosthetic care for 1,000 children with blast injuries. At the G7 this week, the Foreign Secretary was clear that Israel must ensure humanitarian access, humane treatment and basic welfare for civilians in Gaza. So we are acting, and we will continue to act, to alleviate the suffering.
Let me repeat that we recognise Israel’s legitimate security concerns and of course condemn Hamas’s 7 October terrorist attack, the worst antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust. I stood in resolute solidarity with Israelis and Jews at the memorial event and exhibition organised with the Israeli embassy just a few weeks ago. Let me also be clear that the United Kingdom remains committed—fully committed—to resolution 2803 and the 20-point peace plan. We are resolute and clear that Hamas must decommission their weapons, dismantle their terrorist infrastructure and relinquish control of Gaza. Ultimately, we need a lasting answer to this conflict. Our north star remains the two-state solution as the only route to lasting peace, security and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me add that while Gaza is rightly the immediate focus of my statement, it is not the only humanitarian crisis in the region that demands our attention. I want to say something about the appalling situation in Yemen, which is compounding the years of suffering, death and destruction faced by Yemenis. The Houthis’ decision to resume conflict has worsened an already desperate humanitarian situation. Since August, more than 330,000 people have fled their homes, there have been more than 1,000 civilian casualties and hundreds have been killed.
The situation is particularly acute in Taiz, where the continued Houthi siege restricts the movement of people, aid and essential goods. Women and children are particularly vulnerable as supplies run low, and healthcare services have been drastically reduced. The recruitment and use of children in the conflict, widespread displacement and food insecurity are causing further suffering. In recent weeks, I have met senior representatives of the Government of Yemen, and listened directly to humanitarians working on the frontline. We cannot turn away, and donors and the world cannot turn away, in the face of such appalling suffering. We need to do more.
I am also appalled by the continued detention of UN workers, and the deaths we have seen. I reiterate that international humanitarian law must be upheld by all. We are providing £104 million in humanitarian support to Yemen, including the recently announced £10 million to the UN’s emergency fund. We will continue to work with the Government of Yemen and other partners to protect and support civilians and return to a political process.
Finally, I want to update the House on sanctions, which I know are a matter of keen interest. In September, the Foreign Secretary announced further action in relation to Gaza and the west bank, including a new sanctions regime targeting illegal settlement activity. I can confirm that work is under way to prepare that regime, but in recent weeks we have also moved at pace to expand the global human rights sanctions regime to cover serious violations of international humanitarian law, including obstructing the delivery of or access to humanitarian aid. In recent weeks, we have also acted in other contexts. For example, in relation to the appalling situation in Sudan, we have sanctioned 15 senior commanders from the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces for suspected atrocities, including conflict-related sexual violence.
We do not comment on future designations under our sanctions regimes—the House knows why—but I want to be clear today that we are prepared to use these expanded powers against those who continue to block the entry of aid into Gaza and other conflict zones anywhere in the world. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
First, I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the statement he has made. Let me start by sharing with him the simple horror that, I think, the whole House shares at the suffering and cruelty inflicted on so many by so few. Time and again, we have seen how this happens: a small group of extremists dominates a society, murders the lawful authority and takes power for itself, leading to suffering falling on the heads of thousands. Tragically, that is exactly what we have seen in Gaza.
When the Palestinian Authority took control of the territory in 2005, Mahmoud Abbas began enforcing a prohibition against militants carrying weapons in public. As we know, that led to street battles, the murder of Palestinian police officers and the takeover by Hamas. Since then, we have seen the terrible price of that takeover. We have seen the murder of hundreds and the exile of more—perhaps even thousands—who simply wanted to live in peace. The cruelty of life under the Iranian-funded and armed terror group is simply horrific.
Just look at the record on aid. In the decade ending in 2023, which is the last I can get reliable figures for, the United Kingdom gave almost £1 billion—£800 million and more—in aid to the Palestinian Authority. It was more if we count what went through the UN agencies, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and even more if we count the aid given through the generosity of the British people by charities. What have we seen for it? We have seen the vile indoctrination of hatred, and the control of food and services to achieve dictatorial compliance. We have seen the biggest network of tunnels built to prepare for war. It is striking, is it not, that these air raid shelters were not built to protect the civilians, who were never allowed in. Palestinian women and children were never allowed in the tunnels. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Lady shaking her head. If she wants to side with Hamas, she is welcome to—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] But if she wishes to stand with the Palestinian people, she should recognise what Hamas have done. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We need to keep tempers down on both sides of the House, or time on the statement will run out.
Tom Tugendhat
Those who stand with the Palestinian people stand against Hamas.
Again and again, sadly, we have seen Hamas torturing and murdering so many. Does that leave others innocent? Of course it does not. Does it leave Israel innocent? No. The deaths of John Chapman, James Kirby, Jim Henderson and four others who were not British while working for the World Central Kitchen shows that civilian casualties have been too common, and the Australian inquiry into the events points to extremely clear problems that the Israel Defence Forces must resolve.
The Opposition also condemn the blockages of aid getting into the territory and Egypt’s closure of the southern border, just as we condemn the unnecessary Israeli restrictions. However, we recognise that aid has been weaponised by the Hamas leadership that has been in control for more than 20 years. Again and again, Hamas have chosen to hurt, murder and destroy their own people for the political benefit of their masters in Tehran and their vile ideology.
Britain now has a choice. Do we stand with those who see a different future? Do we want to support Palestinian voices who are rightly crying out for justice, and Israeli voices who have clearly said, “Enough”? Do we want to recognise that the abuses we have seen, which states such as Jordan and Egypt condemn, have continued for too long? That is the position we should be holding, working with Egypt which controls the southern border and with Jordan which rightly observes the abuses we have seen far too often by settlers in the west bank. Will the Minister please commit to engaging more closely with those countries supporting Palestinian and Israeli voices seeking peace?
Perhaps more importantly, given the extension the Minister made into areas such as Yemen, will he look at the root of so much of the violence and cruelty he listed today, which is of course in Iran? The regime in Tehran has brought murder, hatred, death and destruction to hundreds of thousands, including some people here in the United Kingdom. In Yemen, Gaza and sadly across the middle east, we have seen the price of the vile ayatollah’s regime. It is time for that to end and to relieve the suffering of so many in the Arab world and across the whole of the continent.
Stephen Doughty
I was disappointed by the tone of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s response. I urge him to think very, very carefully about the comments he made and consider withdrawing them. I thought they were entirely inappropriate and entirely inaccurate. Nobody on this side of the House has any sympathy whatsoever for the activities of Hamas. They are a proscribed organisation and they are appalling. Critically, I was clear that they must play no part in the future government of Gaza and, indeed, that they must disarm. We are committed to that and the whole Government are committed to that.
I was disappointed, too, that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the actions that need to take place to actually alleviate the suffering in Gaza. The fact is that aid is being denied entry. I have seen it with my own eyes, as have others on this side of the House, and Israel needs to take responsibility. [Interruption.] Israel needs to take responsibility. It has clear responsibilities as the occupying power, legally and morally, and it must act. That is the message we have been taking to it very, very clearly.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the attack at World Central Kitchen. It was an appalling and utterly despicable attack. Brave British nationals, former service personnel, lost their lives, as did people from other countries. We need to see justice and accountability, and that is lacking—sadly and appallingly lacking—at present. We will continue to urge for that justice and accountability to be delivered.
I am also disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of the fact that his colleagues in the other place voted the other day to regret the expansion of our global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime. That was an extraordinary decision, not least because the powers in that new legislation will enable us to target the individuals responsible anywhere, not just in relation to Gaza and the west bank, but in Sudan, Yemen and many other conflicts that I know he cares about deeply. Perhaps he will explain at some point why his colleagues voted in that way.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Iran. He knows the Government’s position on Iran. He also knows of the very serious actions that we have taken against Iran, which include the huge package of sanctions against Iran announced on 8 September, action against Lebanese Hezbollah, and our condemnation of the proxy and partner groups it is funding and supporting across the middle east, whether in Yemen, Lebanon or Iraq, and the militia groups aligned with it that are causing so much destabilisation and harm. He knows that we condemn Iran’s actions absolutely, and we will continue to take the appropriate action.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for all the work he is doing. I also support him in his condemnation of the shadow Foreign Secretary for his lack of condemnation of the barbaric Israeli Government who are blocking humanitarian aid. [Interruption.] It is a flagrant violation of humanitarian law. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Tugendhat, when one person is speaking we do not need a running commentary from people who are seated. Kim Johnson, the floor is yours for your question.
Kim Johnson
Okay, I will carry on.
Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to use the extension of powers in the Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 to take action, and when that will that happen?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend rightly points to the new regulations. She will know—she and other colleagues were part of the debates—that they have just been passed and introduced. We moved at pace to do that. The other regime we announced on 8 September will take longer. I will not tell her in the House today exactly who will be designated or exactly when under those regimes, but I can tell her that we do not take powers without intending to use them.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome his words and attention on Yemen. I regret the shadow Foreign Secretary’s appalling comments from his seat, and his inability to meet the moment and do what the public are asking us to do about Gaza.
I have continually noted in this Chamber that Israel’s current interpretation of dual-use restrictions means that Palestinians are routinely and systematically denied essential items. The floods could not have been prevented, but timely access to humanitarian aid could have reduced the ensuing devastation. As the Minister notes, 150,000 tents are waiting at Gaza’s borders but are not being allowed in. The crisis does not end with the floods. UNICEF reports that no waste water treatment plant is currently working in Gaza, while in Gaza City rainwater mixed with sewage is threatening to overflow from the Sheikh Radwan stormwater basin, where only two of six pumps still work. UNICEF has been waiting for approval from the Israeli authorities for more than a year to bring in the equipment needed to repair the facility. As temperatures drop, more than half a million children in Gaza are now facing their fourth winter in torn tents or makeshift shelters, and more than a million people are in need of winter clothing.
I share the Minister’s horror at the reports of the horrific attack on Nasser hospital, which has reportedly killed a surgeon, a child and patients. Enough was long ago enough. I welcome the Government’s condemnation of the illegal occupation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but action must follow. Palestine must be able to function as a state without Hama and not permanently relying on an occupying force to decide whether it can access the basic necessities of life.
Will the Government apply the new international humanitarian law sanctions regulations to specifically sanction those responsible for blocking aid? Will he use every diplomatic lever possible to push the Israeli Government to permit immediate entry of humanitarian supplies into Gaza, including those materials needed to make urgent repairs to water and sanitation infrastructure? What steps are the Government taking with international partners to stop aid being diverted or stolen by Hamas?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for her support for what I said about Yemen. She was absolutely right to focus on dual-use items. I was staggered that even wheelchairs, medical scanners that should be in hospitals treating people who desperately need help, and even footballs for children, so that they should be able to enjoy some basic activity and sports, were being denied. It is just unfathomable why those things are being denied entry, let alone what I have said today about tents, timber and other crucial equipment to respond to what we saw at the weekend.
That has to change and it has to change urgently. I can assure her that we are using every lever at our disposal and every contact. Officials have been engaging this week—we have asked to meet the Co-ordinator of Government Activities in the Territories—and we will continue to raise this at every single level.
The hon. Lady will have heard what I said about the new global human rights and international humanitarian law regime. It has just come into place. I will not comment on future designations, but obviously we take powers because we intend to use them.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Bullets, bombs, drones and starvation—the methods by which Netanyahu and his apartheid regime kills Palestinian children, women and men are varied. When I look through history, I have to say that I have no faith that a different Israeli Prime Minister and a different Israeli Government would actually treat Palestinians like human beings.
I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, but yet again we have another statement in this place full of sorrow and condemnation—nothing really changes. The time to do something meaningful that will actually stop the genocide and the killing of Palestinians is long overdue. My question is very simple: when will the Government stop all arms sales to Israel?
Stephen Doughty
It is a statement full of genuine sorrow and a sense of being appalled at what is happening in Gaza. I say it with sincerity and the Government say it with sincerity. I take issue with my hon. Friend’s suggestion that nothing changes. He has seen in recent weeks that a number of things have changed. We announced our intention to ban the trade. We announced our intention to deal with those expanding illegal settlements. We announced, just today, additional funding to respond to the appalling events at the weekend. I am proud of what this Government are doing to respond, but we need to do more and we need to galvanise others to do more. That is exactly what we are doing in New York today. He knows the steps we have taken already on the suspension and the refusal of arms sales; we have set those out in detail. He also knows of the new double lock in relation to arms sales that the Foreign Secretary announced in relation to the unlawfulness of the occupation.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The situation in Gaza is intolerable, as is the situation in the west bank. Will the Government consider extending sanctions to Avi Bluth, the IDF general in charge of operations in the west bank, who has been observed by peace activists directing illegal settler militant action against the resident civilian population in Jericho?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member knows that we do not comment on specific designations or on sanctions in advance. I have heard what he said and hear many other calls for sanctions on those involved in the expansion of settlements and the settler violence and terrorism that we have seen. We have already introduced a number of sanctions on individuals, we are considering other cases, and we will update the House in due course.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s message of letting aid and journalists in, and I strongly condemn the approach and tone of the shadow Foreign Secretary in response to the statement. I welcome the expansion of the global human rights regime to include obstructing delivery or access to humanitarian aid and look forward to that being used soon, as the Minister said, as well as the new regime on illegal settlements. Will the Minister say what more is being done to prepare the legislation around the trade ban for activity in the illegal settlements?
Stephen Doughty
I certainly can say more, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the regime. He rightly talks about some of the additional powers that we have taken in the GHR and IHL regimes. We are working at pace to bring in the wider settlement trade ban. The Foreign Secretary said it will take six to nine months, but I hope we can be at the earlier end of that spectrum. We need to ensure that the regime is effective, proportionate and that it has an impact on deterring and disrupting those who are expanding and facilitating the settlements. The Foreign Secretary has been very clear about the message to businesses and others involved in that. We are also ensuring that the regime has the appropriate religious considerations in place, and that it does not affect trade with green line Israel, which we of course continue to support.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The scale of the humanitarian catastrophe is enormous. I note the Minister’s outrage, but I fear that some of his estimates are below the figures that I am receiving—1.4 million people are now living in tents. I welcome the aid that the UK Government are providing, but it is of no consequence if it is sitting on the border, unable to get in. That is the problem. Why has the Israeli ambassador not been summoned to the Foreign Office to account for those illegal actions? The aid is needed this weekend—not in a month or a week’s time. If entry is not opened over the weekend, what action will the Government take on Monday?
Stephen Doughty
As I said, we are raising those issues directly with the Israeli Government, both in Tel Aviv and with the Israeli embassy here, as well as with the other agencies involved, so I can assure him on that point. Obviously, we listen to partners on the ground as to the scale of the figures. A number of items of the aid that we provided have got in, and agencies are able to deliver some services, but the fact is, as the hon. Member rightly says, it is simply not enough. A staggering number of tents, tarpaulins and other things are being blocked, and the continued failure to open points such as Erez, and the closure at Kerem Shalom, are doing nothing to help the situation; they are making it worse. Open those points, remove the dual-use restrictions in the way that we have suggested, and get that assistance in. It is absolutely critical.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Before I ask my question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will let you and the House know that James Thomas Campbell from my constituency was killed at the weekend in the terrible attacks in Krakow—the only British victim. I thank the Minister for the support his Department is giving the family. I am sure the whole House will want to pass on their condolences to Mr Campbell’s family.
Voters in Central Ayrshire are deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the recent deadly storms affecting many tens of thousands of people. What they do not want to hear is infantile comments from the shadow Foreign Secretary slurring members of this Government. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) is in government, bringing to bear all her experience of the situation. Will the Minister assure my constituents and the House that he is doing all he can, with her help, to get that vital aid into Gaza?
Stephen Doughty
First, I offer my condolences and those of the Government on the death of my hon. Friend’s constituent. It was an absolutely appalling attack. I know Krakow well as a city, and I have sat in that square myself. It was an appalling scene. We are working closely with the Polish authorities on the case, as well as providing the appropriate consular support to the family in what is a deeply distressing and appalling time. My thoughts are with them.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her past work and advocacy on those issues before joining the Government. It is crucial that we listen to the actual experiences of those who have seen the reality on the ground in Gaza, as well as organisations and others. That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary and I have been doing, and I will listen to what they have to say about the reality of what is happening and respond accordingly.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Would the Minister agree that the Palestinian-majority parties, which have scored a record number of seats in the most recent Israeli elections and have now said that, despite profound differences, they will give Eisenkot support in trying to find a new Government, so that there might be a change of policy in the Israeli Government, show us all what extraordinary grace is needed if we are to find a lasting and inclusive peace in the region? I have to say, it is a grace that seems to be totally missing from the Conservative Front Bench today. Will the Minister also give us an update on the latest with the so-called board of peace, which was meant to be brokering the aid into Gaza, but seems to be totally missing from the conversation?
Stephen Doughty
On the Israeli elections, obviously the formation of any future Government is a matter for the parties and people in Israel and for their system of government. We will of course work and engage with any Government formed, and our asks of that Government and demands in relation to the situation will be same: get the aid in; support the two-state solution; stop the illegal settlement expansion; and stop the violence and settler terrorism that we have seen. Our message will be very clear whoever is in power and we will engage accordingly.
The hon. Lady talked about the board of peace, which does important work. We are not a member of the board of peace, but when I was in Egypt a few weeks ago, I met with the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which is the body that has been set up to look at the administration of Gaza going forward. The House will note the comments of the board of peace in relation to the current situation in Gaza, and the condemnation and criticism that has come from all parts. That shows the scale of the challenge, and that the Israeli Government need to respond.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Last night, six Palestinians including a surgeon, Dr Rizk Abu Shaira, were slaughtered in an airstrike on Gaza’s Nasser medical complex. It is the sixth attack on the hospital in just three years, and part of the systemic healthcare destruction in Gaza that UN experts have called a “medicide”. Can the Minister confirm whether this Government are tracking Israel’s use of the F-35 parts that are still shamefully being exported to Israel from the UK, and whether they are being used to deliberately target Gaza’s last remaining hospitals?
Stephen Doughty
I share my hon. Friend’s horror at the reports coming in overnight, and we have been attempting to get clarity on the situation there. A hit on a medical facility, after so many doctors, humanitarian workers and others have lost their lives, been injured and been put at risk by the actions in Gaza, is absolutely appalling. I have heard the appalling experiences of a number of doctors in recent weeks. I assure my hon. Friend that all of our arms exports are kept under constant review, and we are convinced that we have the right measures in place to ensure that they are done in accordance with the law.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Almost 2 million people are now forced into 30% of the Gaza strip. Israel continues to bombard them, to allow them to die and to refuse aid going in. How is the British Government’s aid going to get there, and what sanctions will the Minister place against Israel, as the illegal occupying power of the Gaza strip, for its refusal to allow it in? Will the Minister, for once, make it absolutely clear that there is no further military or security co-operation whatsoever with Israel because of its behaviour in the west bank and its killing of almost 100,000 people on the Gaza strip?
Stephen Doughty
I was very clear about what needs to happen on Gaza: we need to get all that crucial aid in. The aid that we have provided has made a difference, but it cannot make the difference that we wish it to have, and all items cannot get in, because of the blockages we have seen. The right hon. Gentleman rightly points to Israel’s responsibilities as an occupying power. It needs to adhere to them—there are clear legal grounds for that—and we will continue to urge it to do so. I have been very clear about the position we have taken on arms exports and the number of licences that we have refused and revoked. We will continue to keep all those under constant review.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement this morning. I have to say that I have been saddened by the approach of the those on the Opposition Front Bench, particularly as the Minister was addressing what is a climate catastrophe and two breaches of international law by a so-called democratically elected Government. In a meeting earlier this year with COGAT—Co-ordinator of Government Activities in the Territories—a cross-party delegation from this House and I were appalled at the perverse way in which the definition of dual-use items was being used, as it includes things like tent poles that can by no means be considered to be dual use. I very much welcome the sanctions the Minister has talked about, but will he be very firm in his conversations with COGAT, as I know he will be, in ensuring that that definition is consigned to the history books once and for all?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that the absurdity of some of the restrictions is at the heart of the conversations we are having with COGAT, and indeed other authorities. She quite rightly points out the climate aspects of this situation, too. The tragedy is that we knew those conditions were coming, and from previous examples we have seen we knew the impact they could have. Like others, including the United Nations, we issued warnings, and yet that crucial aid and assistance was not able to get in at the necessary levels, and large numbers of tents, tarpaulins and the equipment to put tents up still remain outside Gaza.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The blocking of aid has previously been cited by a UN commission as evidence of a genocide in Gaza, and stopping infant milk reaching starving children certainly sounds like that to me. Are this Government committed to working with the UN to provide the necessary evidence to prove that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide?
Stephen Doughty
The Foreign Secretary and I have set out our position on this matter on a number of occasions. We will, of course, continue to work and support the work of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and other bodies and listen very carefully to all evidence provided.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the promise of the further £5 million. The devastating flooding in Gaza has compounded the intolerable suffering of the Palestinians. Israel’s continued obstruction of humanitarian aid, including vital flood relief materials, is indefensible. When will the Minister and the Government not simply ask for but demand the immediate entry of emergency shelters, drainage equipment and flood relief supplies, press Israel to remove all restrictions on humanitarian access and work with international partners to establish a funded, long-term reconstruction programme to prevent further avoidable suffering?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend clearly and passionately sets out the situation in Gaza. I hope I have been very clear today that we are making demands, and that it is not just us, but the United Nations and other countries doing so. We will be bringing together other people in that demand in New York today.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is absolutely horrific. The Minister says that he is here today to send a clear message to the Israeli Government to let in the aid, but as he himself has pointed out, he and others have been sending that same message and predicting this situation for months and indeed years. Unless asks are accompanied by action, they will be ignored, as they have been over and over again. The Minister talks about contributing more UK aid, but what is the point if it is just going to sit on the border, blocked from getting through the border crossings by the Israeli Government? I welcome the expansion of the global human rights sanctions regime to cover blocking delivery of humanitarian aid; surely deregistering 37 humanitarian organisations and stopping tents getting through to people facing horrific flooding counts as that. How much longer does the Minister need to wait until he acts?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest respect, we are acting, we have acted and we will continue to act. Ultimately, the responsibility here lies with Israel as the occupying power. It is failing to deliver on those requirements, and we are going to hold it to account in every way possible. We have taken powers and announced additional money today. We will continue to demand directly with Israel, and with others publicly, and to build international pressure and consensus around that. That is exactly what we are doing in New York today—bringing together other countries and ensuring that that pressure is brought to bear on Israel to uphold its responsibilities.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Against the backdrop of a war that has seen a record number of orphaned child amputees, the news that equipment to alleviate the devastating floods in Gaza is being blocked at the border continues a pattern that we have seen with medicines and baby food. Does the Minister agree that without actual evidence that this is being done for military purposes, it looks like collective punishment? Will he restate our adherence to the ICJ process and use maximum pressure? Change of Government or not, a change of action is needed.
Stephen Doughty
A change of action is absolutely needed. I have heard the same reports as my hon. Friend about medicines, prosthetics and other items being denied entry. She will note that I announced what we are doing, particularly on the issue of prosthetics. Of course, we also need to get access for people to be medically evacuated, as we have already done with a number of severe cases, including here to the UK. We need to open up new routes for people to get treated in the region, too. Most crucially, hospitals in Gaza need to have the equipment and capability necessary to function as hospitals and not to face devastating attacks that kill their personnel.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
In 2024, the ICJ issued three legally binding orders requiring Israel to allow entry of shelter, food, fuel and medical supplies and to keep those crossings open for as long as possible. We often hear warm words from the Dispatch Box supporting the principles of international law, and we have heard talk again today of expanding sanctions, but the real question is, when? What work is the Minister undertaking with international allies to ensure that those ICJ orders are upheld?
Stephen Doughty
It is crucial that ICJ orders and positions are respected, which is exactly why we work with international partners to raise attention to that and to hold Israel to account. That is exactly the sort of work we are doing in New York in our role on the Security Council; it is exactly the work we are doing today, bringing together different international partners as part of our call to action on humanitarian access. We will continue to hold Israel to account.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The recent flooding in Gaza has made an awful situation even worse. Some 1.4 million Gazans living in tents and thousands of families have lost what little shelter they had. We need to get as much aid into Gaza as possible, and Israel continuing to block that aid seemingly breaks international law. I ask the Minister what practical diplomatic action we will take if Israel continues to block the flow of aid into Gaza.
Stephen Doughty
We have already taken practical diplomatic action this week, including in Tel Aviv and here in London and, crucially, in galvanising other countries around the world. I hope to be able to share with my hon. Friend such work later on today in New York to hold Israel to account on these very issues.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I cannot recall another conflict where the occupying and illegally invading force has used adverse weather, starvation and hypothermia as a weapon of war. The comments from those on the Opposition Front Bench were absolutely disgusting. Our compassion should be equal for Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians. We should not differentiate in our humanity based on ethnicity or nationality.
Israel has used Lavender AI systems to target and execute thousands of Palestinian children, women and men. According to the Financial Times, the IDF is now in talks to deploy 1,000 AI robots to police and potentially engage in combat in Gaza. The humanitarian crisis is only worsening, with the future of technology being used to annihilate the civilian population, while Israel’s tech sector is booming. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the UK can no longer invest in Israeli companies or co-operate with Israel, as these tools are used to cause the misery and death of Palestinians?
Stephen Doughty
I am not aware of the specific systems that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I would be very happy to write to him on that issue. What I can assure him of is that we have, I would argue, the most robust export licensing system in the world and we have huge amounts of scrutiny and controls on it. We consider all export licences in that regard.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and condemn the shadow Foreign Secretary’s comments. The situation in Gaza is dire. Flooding has damaged or destroyed thousands of shelters. Heavy rain has disrupted education for around 55,000 children across at least 55 learning spaces, while flooding and damaged infrastructure are putting children’s health, safety and access to basic essentials at serious risk. Enough is enough. What discussions has the Minister had with his American counterparts, who have real influence over the Israeli Government, to try to broker a deal to ensure that aid flows fully into Gaza?
Stephen Doughty
We engage closely with our American counterparts on a range of issues every day, as my hon. Friend will know. While we are not part of the board of peace, we have engaged closely with it and the efforts on the 20-point plan. It is crucial that that is able to move forward. Part of that is making sure that there is humanitarian access for aid supplies. We will work with all partners internationally to address these appalling issues on the ground, which she rightly described.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I am also genuinely shocked that the shadow Foreign Secretary would use a horrific humanitarian crisis in an attempt to score cheap political points.
The flooding in Gaza has added more suffering to what was already a horrific and deteriorating situation, if that were even possible, and the Israeli Government preventing aid from getting in is making life even worse for elderly people, sick people and children. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to further aid and the condemnation of the Israeli Government’s actions, but could he highlight what specific actions are being taken by us and our allies to ensure that Israel does allow aid in, including any further sanctions and when those will be imposed? Will the Israeli ambassador be summoned to No. 10 by the end of today?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman has already heard what I said about our engagement directly with the Israeli Government in Tel Aviv and here. I can assure him that multiple conversations are going on. I could not be clearer publicly, let alone privately, about what needs to happen. We are conveying that in every way possible and working with international partners.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues about the humanitarian funding we are providing to Palestine overall. Of the £78.3 million we already announced, £74.9 million has been disbursed to partners already, including in Gaza and the west bank. I assure him that the work we are doing is making a difference. Given the scale of need that he describes and what we saw at the weekend, so much more needs to get in and so much more needs to be done. That is what we are pressing for.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I think many Conservative voters in Edinburgh South West would be disgusted by the shadow Foreign Secretary’s comments. The only reassurance I can give them is that when he made the comments, behind him were four fully empty Benches—perhaps those Members had prior sight of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Eman attended my constituency surgery on Saturday; she has probably attended more of my surgeries than any other constituent. She was in tears talking about this issue, not because she has watched it on TV or seen pictures on social media but because she has lost friends and family in this conflict. She is an amazing woman, and it is always fantastic speaking to her. On her behalf, I want to ask a couple of questions. First, I know that it is a very congested site, but is there no prospect of airdropping aid into Gaza? Secondly, Netanyahu has said that this is nothing to do with Israel—that it has no responsibility. Was there any acceptance in the diplomatic talks that Israel is partly responsible at least and holds the keys to resolving it?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for conveying so powerfully the views of his constituent. It is those direct connections that we often hear about so passionately in our constituencies. Indeed, in my own surgeries in Cardiff South and Penarth I have had individuals who have family in Gaza, and I know humanitarian workers who have worked there as well.
Airdrops are an extraordinarily complex logistical operation to pull off. The best way to get aid in is by reopening those crossing points and making sure that there are no restrictions on dual use. That would have the maximum impact that we want. I could not have been clearer: Israel ultimately has the responsibility. As the occupying power, it has the legal and moral responsibility to allow in this lifesaving aid. We urge it to do so.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We watched this genocide with more than 64,000 Palestinian children murdered and maimed by the 2,000 bombs that rained on their heads. We watched this genocide while Palestinian children were murdered through starvation while piles of food sat a few hundred metres away. We watched this genocide while Palestinian children were butchered by Israeli snipers, drones and tanks. Here we are again, for the fourth winter, watching this genocide while Palestinian children are being drowned by sewage-filled rainwater. Does the Minister agree that we, the UK, have a legal and moral obligation to help, and can he confirm that all options are on the table, including naval assets in the region ready to help to ensure that we stop watching and start acting?
Stephen Doughty
We are acting, we have been acting, and we will continue to act. I am proud of the fact that we had already pre-positioned support and resources with some of the organisations that can make the difference on the ground. That has been making a difference, but there needs to be much, much more. That is why I have today announced the additional £5 million of funding to UNICEF.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement and express solidarity with my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on the Front Bench. A little over a year ago, a ceasefire was agreed, and that offered people a glimmer of hope that finally the horrors we have seen over the past few years were coming to an end. Given that 1,600 men, women and children have been killed since that agreement, it is clear that this is a ceasefire in name only. Will the Minister condemn the ongoing violence and urge all parties to come together and finally honour the commitment of a ceasefire and move towards a lasting peace?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely will. My hon. Friend sets out the case very convincingly; we have to get back to that 20-point plan, and we have to get back to getting the aid in, stopping the violence and moving forward with a governance that no longer involves Hamas.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the statement by the Minister. In it, he outlined the new settlement sanctions regime that was announced earlier this year. I appreciate that he says that work is under way at pace, but can I press him for a timetable for when it will come into force?
Stephen Doughty
I set out a timetable earlier. The Foreign Secretary was clear that it will be six to nine months, but we will try to do it at the earlier end of that scale. I want to be clear with the House that that is because we need to make sure that this regime is designed effectively, so that it will have the impact that we are aiming for. We have incredible teams of sanctions officials who work on these issues. We are very successful in that the regimes that we run around the world have an impact as well as being legally and evidentially sound. It is important that we get it right, but we want to see this brought in as soon as possible.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Government have rightly described Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the west bank as illegal. In the light of this, surely Israel’s control of Gaza’s territorial waters must be in some question. Can my hon. Friend the Minister give his thoughts on what pressure this Government and the international community can bring to bear on Israel to ensure that aid can come in, perhaps through a naval route and indeed other routes?
Stephen Doughty
Matters that ultimately relate to maritime delimitations and so on must be done in line with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. We are a firm defender of that principle. My hon. Friend rightly talks about different routes through which aid can get in. I would draw him back to what I said earlier, which is that the best thing that can be done is to reopen Erez, to make sure that Kerem Shalom is open fully and to ensure that those dual-use restrictions are removed. That will make the tangible difference on the ground right now.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Like myself, my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden are deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, with 950,000 displaced people urgently in need of aid. Unlike the Conservatives, I am very proud that we have committed £88 million to support the Palestinian territories and an extra £5 million today. Could the Minister say more about the expansion of the global human rights regime and how that might help to get the aid into Gaza that is so desperately needed?
Stephen Doughty
I set out the message on that new regime at the end of my statement. We are sending a very clear signal that—not just in relation to Gaza but in relation to a number of other conflicts and situations around the world—we can take action against those who deny humanitarian assistance and lifesaving aid when it is most needed. My hon. Friend speaks with great passion on behalf of her constituents, and I thank her for the support that she has given us today.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Like, I suspect, every Member of this House, I have received countless emails from my concerned constituents—residents of West Dunbartonshire—who regard the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, made worse by the recent deadly storm, as utterly unacceptable and entirely the fault of Israel and its restrictions on aid getting in. Will the Minister tell the House what level of UK lifesaving humanitarian aid is blocked, and who have we specifically sanctioned, and when, for actions in blocking UK aid?
Stephen Doughty
On the last point, we have only just taken the powers in recent weeks, and I will not comment on future designations. On the aid that has been provided to date and what items we think are being blocked, I do not how much granular detail we can go into for operational reasons, but I will certainly try to write to my hon. Friend with some more information about the types of items and others that we have funded. I saw with my own eyes huge amounts of aid from a range of different donors sitting in warehouses in Egypt, unable to be delivered because the Israelis had denied it.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. Last night, my two-year-old daughter fell asleep next to me in a warm, dry home. In Gaza, mums and their two-years-olds were not sleeping; they were surrounded by flood water, frozen and drenched. As mums like me watch this from our living rooms in the UK, I am sure that I cannot be the only one thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I.” What new steps are being considered following Israel’s recent elections to make it clear that withholding the vital aid that we are providing, including to toddlers and babies, will not be tolerated now or throughout the extremely difficult winter still to come?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend speaks with the passion and clarity of any parent in this House or, indeed, in Britain when looking at those scenes. That is fundamentally what should be motivating us in our efforts and in our commentary on this situation. Most importantly, we have to act, and that is exactly why we are going to use every route we have—directly with the Government of Israel, directly with the different agencies and authorities, at the United Nations, in our sanctions regimes, and ultimately in the direct aid and assistance that we can provide—to ensure that children do not have to go through the experience that she so powerfully described.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trustee for a humanitarian children’s charity that sends aid to hospitals and families in Gaza at this time.
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. He knows that humanitarian organisations are working tirelessly on the ground to try to save lives. More than 77,000 Palestinians have lost their lives in this abhorrent war, including 17,000 children, yet even after the so-called ceasefire, still more than 1,600 have lost their lives. We know from the reports from the UN and its independent commission that Israel has committed war crimes and genocide against the Palestinian people. What further action will the Government take to protect civilians, including children, in Gaza and to secure a lasting peace?
Stephen Doughty
International humanitarian law and principles need to be upheld. We are resolute in defending those principles internationally and in the accountability that we expect. We communicate that directly to the Government of Israel and to all other parties, and we will continue to stand up for humanitarian workers and all those who do incredible work. I want to pay tribute to them, because I have met so many over recent weeks. They often put themselves in harm’s way, knowing the risks, and still go out there driven by the pure humanitarian impulse to try to make life better for people who are suffering so much. My tribute today is to them.
Sarah Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has acted shamefully during this session. First, he suggested that an hon. Member was siding with Hamas, a proscribed terror organisation—a disgraceful slur, which the right hon. Member needs to withdraw. Then, from a sedentary position, he suggested that another one of my hon. Friends was being antisemitic. Will you provide advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to how to ensure that the record is corrected and such awful accusations are not allowed to stand?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She and all Members will know that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary debate, and they should prevail even from a sedentary position.
Tackling Obesity
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee. Layla Moran will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions. At the conclusion of the statement, Members may ask questions on the subject of the statement; those contributions must be questions, not speeches.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee, it is a pleasure to present to the House our report on the obesity moonshot, our sixth report of this Parliament. It is also the final report in a series from our inquiry on food and weight management, drawing together our two previous reports on the food environment and obesity treatment.
What if I said that there was a life-limiting condition that affects a third of adults in this country—one that costs the Government at least £74 billion a year, and for which they have no coherent plan? I am afraid to say that this is the case for the relapsing, remitting condition that is obesity—a condition that, if left untreated, is associated with dozens of others, from cancer to diabetes to heart disease and fertility problems. Why have we got here? In short, it has happened because of an enduring underlying stigma that that condition is in some way a personal failing of individuals, rather than a largely preventable and demonstrably treatable disease that society and the Government need to take as seriously as any other.
In July last year, we launched our inquiry into food and weight management to better understand the public health challenge of rising rates of obesity. We asked why, despite there being at least 14 Government strategies and nearly 700 individual policies since 1992, efforts to reverse the tide of the country’s obesity crisis have failed spectacularly. The latest Government policy—the so-called moonshot—was announced in the Government’s 10-year health plan, with an ambition to “end the obesity epidemic.” That is certainly a laudable aim, but it faces the unfortunate pitfall of lacking any real substance, and our concern is that, without significant work, it is doomed to fail. We want this to succeed. If we are going to call it a moonshot, let us look at its destination, at its flight path and at who is in command. Can you tell that I am a Star Trek geek, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Obesity is a crisis. Among reception-age children, it has now reached a level of 10.5%. That is the highest it has ever been. It is a shocking figure. When we asked Ministers what they expected from the trajectory of the moonshot—do we expect the rise to stop, level off or go down, and over what period and with what targets?—we did not get any coherent answers. That is just not good enough. How do we know if we are reaching where we want to go if we have not even defined the destination?
Next, let us look at how we might get there: the flight plan. We found a muddled relationship between prevention and treatment in conversations about obesity. I hear this all the time. If someone is living with obesity, immediately the conversations about it turn to the food system. However, the fact of the matter is—and this is the bit that I think most people do not understand—if someone has lived with obesity for a long-enough period of time, their underlying physiology changes. It is no longer enough simply to point to lifestyle changes or to ask for changes in the wider environment. There must also be a clinical pathway that those people can follow, and that is simply not what happens.
Let us take another example that is not dissimilar. A bariatric surgeon told us,
“I still see lung cancer every day in my clinical practice, and I have to treat it…Nobody questions whether those patients should get chemotherapy”.
But if someone presents with obesity, that is exactly what happens. We do not tell someone living with cancer to stop smoking—it is too late by that point. Yes, ideally, we stop them in the first place, but we also need to be able to treat the problem in front of us. One reason we have not turned the tide on obesity so far is the failure to treat prevention and treatment as distinct but interoperable.
Let us take each in turn. On prevention, our report on “Fixing the food environment” focused on the action that the Government must take to prevent people from living with obesity in the first place, bearing in mind that two thirds of the British population are either living with overweight or living with obesity. The food environment has significantly changed—certainly since I was a child in the ’80s—towards an environment of more heavily marketed ultra-processed food. These changes have coincided with increasing levels of children and adults living with obesity. Current food policy regulations lag woefully behind, and that hardly comes as a surprise given that the model underpinning our food regulation is nearly 22 years old. The 2018 replacement still has not been implemented. The regulation of our food industry is built on out-of-date scientific advice, so we urge the Government to introduce the 2018 nutrient profiling model as soon as possible and no later than the end of 2027.
Some of our other recommendations from the report include: launching healthy sales reporting as soon as possible so that supermarkets must declare the number of healthy products they sell; introducing mandatory front-of-pack labelling by January 2028 so that customers can make their own choices about a product’s nutritional value; banning outdoor advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt by July 2027, and consulting on extending that to social media; updating the national planning policy framework to better support councils to challenge fast food outlets, particularly those that want to open near schools; and, critically, excluding food businesses that derive a certain proportion of their profits from the foods causing this harm.
We also recognise that cost is a factor. In our inquiry, we heard that healthier food costs more than twice as much per calorie as unhealthy alternatives, and the fact is people living with obesity are disproportionately from low-income backgrounds. In 2024, only 8% of those aged between 11 and 15 in the least deprived areas were living with obesity compared with—this is staggering—30% in the most deprived areas. For too many families, a healthy diet is simply out of reach, and the Government should do more to support them. While the Healthy Start scheme is a great start, it need to be reviewed regularly, especially to keep pace with food inflation. Community projects do great work, but they need stable funding to succeed.
On treatment, our second report, “Modernising obesity treatment” turned to the millions of people already living with obesity; I do not have any shame in saying that I am one of them. When I was in my 20s, I had a life-changing bariatric operation that saw me lose 60 kg, but to say it is over is far from true. People living with obesity know that it is a lifelong battle. The emergence of GLP-1s could help many more people much sooner, but it is no silver bullet. We also know that just 6% of those eligible are currently on it. Those who can pay go private, but those who cannot are either left behind or turn to a dangerous—and it is dangerous—black market. Access to treatment is increasingly decided by ability to pay and not clinical need. Last time I checked, that was not something that the NHS claimed it did.
But GLP-1s are not the only treatment for many people. In 2024-2025, 6,500 people in England had bariatric surgery. France, by contrast, has lower rates of obesity and yet carried out 60,000 operations—as I said, they are life-changing. We recommend that the Government publish a modern service framework for obesity as soon as possible. They need to name it publicly as the lifelong, relapsing condition that it is and focus on expanding capacity across all treatment options, creating an improved, simplified and person-centred pathway of care and improving training for healthcare professionals.
Finally, who is in charge? Fellow parliamentarians will have noted that this issue lies not just in the Department of Health and Social Care; it is also across the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and local government. It needs gripping from the top. If there is another reason why tackling obesity has failed, it is simply that who pays and who is accountable is too dispersed across government. We recommend a cross-Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister himself because this should be a national priority. I appreciate that he has given himself a lot to do, but I urge him to look at this issue, which affects two thirds of our population and the most deprived parts of our society. The Committee wills the Government to succeed on this, although I am afraid to say that, from where we sit, we think the mission might be not just doomed to fail but not even launched yet.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Taking part in this inquiry was eye-opening. It was interesting to see the Public Health Minister’s predecessor tell the Committee that we would treat obesity in future as a relapsing-remitting condition. I hope the current Minister will undertake to follow through on that so that we can update all our guidance. Does the hon. Member agree that central to the problem of how we treat obesity is that we see it as a one-time thing? Like a broken leg, it is treated once, the people lose the weight and then we let them go, with the result that too many people get GLP-1s without the support on diet and lifestyle that comes along with them, and they are not followed up on. Would it not make a lot more sense if the health service treated people in a person-centred way and helped them recover from this relapsing-remitting condition of obesity?
Layla Moran
I am extremely grateful to the Committee member for his question—he is absolutely right. We had a roundtable with lived experience witnesses and they all said the same thing. Even though many had had aspects of treatment over the years and had tried every conceivable diet, what was disheartening was that they would go to their GP and face that wider stigma from the GP themselves, who would tell them that they just needed to tweak things in their modern life. It just does not work that way. Naming it as a relapsing-remitting condition, putting it up there as the public health challenge it is and focusing in on it in the way that we are so good at doing when we want to in this House is the answer—I completely agree with him.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I was pleased to see the wealth of experience that the Select Committee drew upon, including from organisations such as Diabetes UK and Yorkshire Cancer Research. The report asks for a target to cut obesity. That is welcome, but does my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee agree that we need to have additional sub-targets and metrics to ensure that progress is equal across all our regions, because we know a north-south divide still exists and there are persistent issues when it comes to health inequalities, including obesity?
Layla Moran
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. He is exactly right that there is a huge disparity. We know that healthy food is too often out of reach for those on the poorest incomes, especially so when it comes to children, and that is not reflected currently. That is what we hope the modern service framework might start from—how we close that patchwork of services across the country and make inequality one of the core missions of this Government through this policy.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her statement. Most of the House will know—I have spoken about this publicly—that I have had a lifelong battle with obesity. It was only when I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at 33 years old last year that the NHS stepped in to help. Since then, I have lost seven and a half stone through the diabetes path to remission programme. My plea to the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, who I know is listening intently, is that those of us with lived experience of obesity and overweight are included in the conversation about how we tackle this, because for too long people who have not experienced it have dictated to those of us who have, about how best to go forward.
The path to remission programme for type 2 diabetes is referenced in the report and its conclusions because it is a proven weight loss intervention, but it is currently only available to a small subset of people with type 2 diabetes. Does she agree that this cost-effective and efficient way to help people like me to lose weight should be rolled out to people living with obesity nationally?
Layla Moran
I pay enormous tribute to the former member of the Committee. I can entirely understand why he was elevated to other things, but he was very much my right-hand man through the obesity side of this inquiry. I completely agree with him—it was stark. We know what works, and the path for how we do this is clear, but what was missing was a joined-up approach, not just across Departments but within the NHS itself. He is completely right that there are things that work and we know what we need to do, but at the moment we are not seeing that joined-up approach that we need Government to take to achieve it.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Given that child obesity is at record levels, what single intervention does my hon. Friend believe would make the greatest difference to preventing children from developing obesity in the first place?
Layla Moran
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The rising rates of obesity among reception-age children should give us real pause for thought. If we ever wanted proof that obesity is not an individual failing, it is the fact that it seems to be most acute among that population. There is no silver bullet—that is the trap we fall into—despite the lobbying not to do this or that, whether that is about the food industry or advertising. It will never be one thing. It will be a suite of measures that we put around children: stopping fast food joints being on their walk to school; supporting their families with sustained funding, so that they can have healthy food at home; and bans on advertising, which we know works on children, because otherwise, why would the companies do it?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Many moons ago, in 2009, long before I had the pleasure of meeting you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or anybody in this Chamber, I used to be 17 stone. I was a big fat pudding—I am calling myself that. I was eating Chinese food five nights a week with two bottles of Coca-Cola. It was the wrong recipe, with lots of stress. When I became a type 2 diabetic, I realised I had to lose weight. I lost 4 stone, and I have kept it off. I tell that story because sometimes we do not know things are happening until the doctor tells us.
I think of the children in school. I am very fortunate to have six grandchildren. The wee ones especially—the six-year-old and the four-year-old—eat their fruit and veg every day, all day, which is really good. My question is, does the hon. Lady agree that if we want to change habits, we must engage and educate our young people about eating fruit and veg, and if they cannot have it at home, they need to have it at school, starting at primary level?
Layla Moran
All credit to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, I have faced a similar journey, and it is hard to keep the weight off, because once we have lived with it for a long while, our underlying endocrinology changes. People need to appreciate that if we allow young people to live with obesity, it affects their whole life. With any luck, we can avoid the point where they end up with diabetes, which can be reversible, as we know. He is completely right: this needs to happen in school, but it is not just about school. We need to recognise that when those children are at home, their families need help. We need to drive down the prices of healthy fruit and veg, and that needs a joined-up strategy with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That is why we are calling for a cross-Cabinet Committee—because if any one Department tries to do this on its own, it will continue to fail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Select Committee Chair for her statement and all Members who shared their stories.
Defence in the High North
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Defence Committee. Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which there will be no interventions, and there will be questions for 10 minutes at the end.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this statement on the Defence Committee’s report, “Defence in the High North”.
The High North is a priority theatre for the UK, as well as a particularly challenging and hostile environment in which to operate. Russia is seeking to dominate and exploit the High North, potentially turning the region into a major vulnerability for the UK. The UK is a near neighbour of the High North. Indeed, parts of northern Scotland are closer to the Arctic circle than to the channel, while the strategically important GIUK gap spans Greenland, Iceland and the UK.
The region is changing rapidly. As temperatures rise and ice melts, new access routes are opening up, making the High North more congested and contested. Most critically, the High North is home to much of Russia’s strategic nuclear, naval and undersea sabotage capability and provides a base from which Russia can project military power into adjacent regions. That extends to UK territorial waters, where there has been a significant increase in hybrid threats to subsea critical infrastructure. In recent weeks, the Royal Navy has intercepted a Russian intelligence ship off the coast of Scotland.
Our report concluded that the UK has glaring capability gaps in the High North that leave us vulnerable. Without intervention, those gaps are set to widen, further weakening the UK along its northern flank. Evidence of low availability among frigates, destroyers and attack submarines raises serious questions about whether the UK can meet its High North commitments before new capabilities enter service.
The Ministry of Defence also has a serious gap in its anti-submarine warfare capability measured against its own military requirements. Currently, there are 11 frigates and destroyers in service. That is just over half of the requirement for 19 vessels. Of the required 13 frigates, eight should be fitted with towed array sonar for anti-submarine warfare. At present, this capability is limited to the remaining five Type 23s. That weakens the UK’s ability to respond to Russian submarines and underwater sabotage.
It is a worrying picture. The Royal Marines’ Arctic experience is a significant national strength, but it cannot compensate for shortfalls in the naval platforms needed to deploy, protect and sustain operations in the region. The Government are already rightly investing in the hybrid Navy and Atlantic Bastion, including the £90 million investment announced this week in new drones and sensors to counter undersea threats. We know that the Government are aware of the growing threat in the High North. Our concern is not that nothing is being done, but that the necessary capabilities will not be available fast enough. Given the critical role of anti-submarine operations in the High North, the Committee called on the Government to ensure that no further towed array-equipped Type 23 frigates leave service until they are replaced one for one by the new Type 26 vessels.
Addressing our own capability gaps is fundamental, but the UK must also be able to deploy flexibly to the High North, whether acting alone, with partners such as Norway, or through the joint expeditionary force or NATO. That brings me to the joint expeditionary force—the JEF—a UK-led force of 10 like-minded northern European nations. Although the JEF was originally conceived as capable of operating across the full spectrum of conflict, its role has become increasingly focused on countering sub-threshold and hybrid threats, on the assumption that NATO would deter any escalation to warfighting. But with less certainty about the US commitment to collective NATO defence, the JEF’s comparatively limited capabilities could be seen as less of a deterrent. That could leave it exposed if an incident threatens to escalate.
We heard from some during our inquiry that the JEF was a “jack of all trades” and therefore master of no military tasks. The Government should therefore reassess the JEF’s contribution to European security. We welcome this week’s northern navies initiative as a step towards strengthening the JEF and aligning it more closely with NATO. The Government should also consider whether the JEF should focus more closely on the High North, particularly if Canada joins.
It is clear that Russia is not a future threat but a present danger. Failure to deter Russia in the High North would put subsea data cables and energy pipelines at risk in peacetime. In the event of hostilities, it would threaten the UK and its critical national infrastructure, including the nuclear deterrent. Atlantic resupply routes from the US would also be at risk. In conclusion, our report sets out the threat that Russia poses in the High North, and what the Ministry of Defence needs to do in response. It is now time for the Government to act with urgency to address those capability gaps and strengthen the UK’s defence of that critical region.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the Committee and its Chairman on the production of such an important report. One section that most struck me was that beginning at paragraph 84 on submarine under-ice capability. I was surprised to learn that Astute-class submarines do not have the capability that their predecessors, the Trafalgar-class submarines, used to have. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about when that capability might be acquired, and can he throw any light on the fact that, as has become painfully clear over recent weeks and months, the existing Astute-class submarines, some of them very new, are not at sea? Is that a manning problem, is it a technical problem, or is it both?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, a former Chair of the Defence and Intelligence and Security Committees, for his perceptive and incisive remarks. Under-ice capability is key for the UK to effectively deter and defend in the High North. Unfortunately, we have allowed our under-ice capabilities to lapse precisely at the time when they are most needed. That is why a previous Defence Committee report advocated for the hardening of hulls. This report recommends that we rapidly re-establish those under-ice capabilities, because if we do not, Russia will not be deterred from its activities. In fact, it will be further emboldened, because we will not be able to protect those transatlantic supply routes.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I thank the Committee Chair for presenting this report on the High North to the Chamber. Does he agree that it underscores how acutely important our submarine programme is, and the value of what we do in Barrow-in-Furness? Does he also agree that we need a massive increase in funding to help deliver those changes rapidly?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, a fellow member of the Defence Committee, for her strong and positive contributions to this report, and her other work. Indeed, it was a pleasure to visit Barrow-in-Furness and to see some of those submarine capabilities. She is right: as a nation, we need to invest at pace because of the lack of availability of those submarines, and that is portrayed strongly in our report.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his remarks, and I very much enjoyed going with him on our various visits to make this report. Did he feel, as I did, slightly awkward when we were visiting the Nordic states? We know what we are spending on defence. We know that Norway is spending 3.35% of GDP, Denmark 3.5%, Sweden 2.8% and reaching 3.5% by 2028, and Finland 2.85% and reaching 3.3% by 2032, yet we have not yet committed to the Committee’s preferred 3% by the end of this Parliament. That created a certain unease. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that when we visited Norway, we were told by its Chief of Defence that every time the Prime Minister of Norway makes a speech, he mentions the threat from Russia? Does he agree that we must advance the so-called national conversation if we are to take the British public with us, and explain the threat to them, as well as the capability and investment that we need to counter it?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Defence Committee. I very much enjoyed going with him on various visits to increase our knowledge and understanding of what is happening out there, and to get that perspective from our allies. He rightly highlights the significant increases in defence spending among our European allies, which is why some of us have been vocal in our advocacy for the position that the UK must not be left behind, and that we need to reach defence spending of 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. Indeed, as Committee members will be more than aware, we made a joint statement to ensure that the Government focus their attention on that issue. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Committee for his magnificent statement. As the Arctic becomes increasingly contested, with growing Russian and Chinese activity, does he believe that the UK armed forces are adequately equipped, trained and prepared to operate effectively in extreme Arctic conditions, or are there significant gaps in capability and readiness?
Mr Dhesi
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Defence Committee, on his recent elevation to Lib Dem defence spokesperson for veterans and people. No doubt he will give our former Committee member, now the Minister for Veterans and People, good scrutiny in the future.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that there are significant capability gaps, and those need to be addressed. As I said earlier, while we can be proud of the expertise and capabilities of the Royal Marines, those are no substitute for naval vessels or for having the platforms through which they can project that expertise.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Unlike the Secretary of State for Defence, Conservative Members listen to the Chair of the Defence Committee, and indeed to his colleagues who have produced an excellent report, “Defence in the High North”. As I must be brief, I wish to ask about the report’s warnings about the lack of operationally available assets in the Royal Navy, both surface escorts and attack submarines. As the report states on page 29:
“According to several media sources, all five Astute Class nuclear attack submarines have recently all been tied up in dockyards at the same time, with none deployed.”
That point has been mentioned by several Members this afternoon. The Astute class was once described to me by a naval officer as being like a Formula 1 racing car—great on the track, but a bitch when it gets into the pits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned serious capability gaps, so when does he think Ministers will finally come clean about why all five of our nuclear attack submarines have been tied up for months?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the shadow Minister for his kind words about the work of the Committee. Capability gaps, particularly with regard to submarines, were mentioned by the Committee at length, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) was also forthright in making that point. The capability gaps in the delivery of future subs must be addressed urgently. For example, we received evidence suggesting that the production of certain assets was advancing at a “leisurely” pace. That needs to be addressed. Ultimately, as the Committee’s report on AUKUS highlighted, the next-generation SSN-AUKUS is incredibly important and we must ensure that we are investing at pace so that our Australian friends also have that capability at pace. For much of the time at present, we are left in a situation where many of our assets, including submarines, are in either maintenance or deep maintenance.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I commend the Chair of the Defence Committee and his colleagues for a tremendous report. As he rightly mentioned, Scotland is effectively on the frontline of the new potential battleground of the High North. Will the Chair be circling back to the report to see whether there has been progress? Scotland is critical to closing the frigate gap; BAE Systems on the Clyde and Babcock in Rosyth on the east coast are building warships even as we speak. I am concerned by recent comments made by Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, who claimed that Britain is in some way abandoning Scotland to the Russian threat, when in fact one of the real threats to national security in this country is the Scottish National party’s separatist agenda: it is not sure whether it wants to be in NATO or out of NATO, and it wants the nuclear submarines out of Faslane. It is a strange picture, so I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might go back to that?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his incisive comments. He will be pleased to note that Scotland had several mentions in our report, as well as in the wall-to-wall coverage that the hard-hitting report attracted. There was much mention of the need to strengthen our capabilities in Scotland. Obviously, the Scottish Government need to make sure that they are aligned with some of the investments that are being made by the UK Government. That is really important, because during our visits to Scotland we saw that many of those working in the industry, as well as those serving, are very much looking to the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work in partnership. The hon. Gentleman mentioned NATO. Let nobody be in any doubt that NATO is a cornerstone of British defence. I therefore fully concur with his views on that question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee and the Committee for all they have done. The Chair outlined the training that the Royal Marines receive to carry out their duties in the High North. If there is a war—we hope there will not be—the Royal Marines will not fight that war on their own, because the Royal Irish Regiment, along with all the other regiments in the British Army, will fight alongside them. What has been done to ensure that the Royal Irish Regiment and other regiments have the same training as the Royal Marines in the High North?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
You have 40 seconds or less to answer, Mr Dhesi
Mr Dhesi
Thank you for that steer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is ever present in the Chamber, for his question. The Committee did not look into the capabilities offered by the Royal Irish Regiment, but it is true that it needs to be strengthening their capabilities and training because Britain can only succeed if all regiments are fighting together, just as we can only succeed more widely if we are fighting alongside our NATO allies. We need to deter the threat before there is any conflict or crisis.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for his statement and his excellent timekeeping.
Points of Order
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice on whether Mr Speaker has received any notification that the Prime Minister intends to correct the record following his response to my question at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time? He said:
“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”,—[Official Report, 11 November 2026; Vol. 793, c. 172.]
when no such UK Government investment in Scotland had been announced or committed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for having given notice of it. He will be aware that ministerial answers, including the Prime Minister’s, are not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments and that if an error has been made in this instance, the Government will seek to correct it as soon as possible.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a very important statement on an extremely good Defence Committee report. As you have a perfect view of the Chamber from the Chair, could you confirm for the record that throughout the proceeding no Reform Member of Parliament was present?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The right hon. Member will know that that is not a matter for the Chair. He has put his point on the record.
Bill Presented
Residential Use Class (Planning Permission) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ben Maguire presented a Bill to introduce a requirement for a grant of planning permission to change a primary residential home to a short-term let or secondary residential home in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 181).
Backbench Business
Battle of the Somme: 110th Anniversary
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Rebecca Smith, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme.
It is a great privilege to open this debate as we mark the 110th anniversary of one of the most defining battles of the first world war. For 141 days, between 1 July and 18 November 1916, British, Commonwealth and French forces fought along the River Somme in northern France. Around 3.5 million men took part. By the time the fighting ended, well over 1 million men on all sides had been killed, wounded, captured or were missing. Those numbers are almost impossible to comprehend.
Perhaps the figure that remains most deeply embedded in our national consciousness is that of the first day. At 7.30 on the morning of 1 July 1916, whistles sounded and tens of thousands of British soldiers climbed from their trenches and advanced towards the German lines. By the end of that day, the British Army had suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 men killed. It remains the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army.
Yet even those extraordinary figures can distance us from what actually happened. Statistics convey the scale, but do not tell the stories: every single one of those 19,240 fatalities is a unique story—each a family tragedy; an empty chair at a table; potential left forever unfulfilled. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have seen some of those stories projected on to the face of the Elizabeth Tower on Sunday to mark Remembrance Day. I thank the Speaker and his office for their work with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in making that wonderful spectacle happen.
The battle of the Somme did not begin as the predominantly British offensive that it became. In December 1915, the allies had agreed a strategy of co-ordinated offensives against the central powers. Britain and France would attack on the western front, while their allies attacked elsewhere, making it more difficult for Germany and Austria-Hungary to move forces between theatres. Then, in February 1916, Germany attacked Verdun. The enormous demands of that battle meant that the French contribution planned for the Somme was dramatically reduced, while the British commitment increased. By the end of May, one of the principal purposes of the Somme offensive had become relieving the immense pressure on the French at Verdun.
The British Army that prepared for the attack was very different from the small professional force that had gone to France in 1914. It had expanded rapidly following Lord Kitchener’s call for volunteers, and many of the men preparing to fight had relatively little experience of battle. For seven days before the attack, allied artillery pounded the German positions. More than 1.5 million shells were fired. It was hoped that the bombardment would destroy the German defences and cut the thick belts of barbed wire protecting their positions, but in many places those defences survived. German troops had deep dugouts in which to shelter, and when the bombardment lifted, they emerged to meet the attacking infantry.
So began those 141 days of fighting. Names that had once meant very little to people in Britain, and what would become the wider Commonwealth, became part of national memory: Beaumont-Hamel, Mametz, Delville Wood, Pozières, Guillemont, Longueval, Courcelette and Thiepval. Today, anybody who visits the Somme discovers that those places are not simply names in a history book. The battlefield is marked by cemeteries and memorials, many standing on or close to the ground over which those men fought and died.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission commemorates 1.7 million casualties of the two world wars in more than 150 countries. Of those, 140,000 died in France during those bloody months of the battle of the Somme. Around 61,700 have an identified grave, while approximately 78,950 are commemorated by name on memorials to the missing. Commonwealth casualties from the battle lie in more than 400 cemeteries across the region.
I should declare an interest: Members who have heard me speak on this subject will know well that, before entering this House, I had the great privilege of working for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I now chair the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and commemoration. That experience taught me something very simple: behind every one of these enormous figures is a name, and behind every name is a story. Every Member of this House will have many stories from their own constituency, and I want to put a few of the names from my South West Devon constituency on the record.
On 1 July, the 8th and 9th Battalions of the Devonshire Regiment were part of the attack south of Mametz village, which was behind German lines. Successfully taking the village and the surrounding woods, the battalions returned to Mametz to bury their dead in a section of their old frontline trench. Now known as the Devonshire cemetery, the site contains 163 Commonwealth burials from the first world war. There lies Private Thomas Collings of Sparkwell, Plympton, killed on the first day of battle. Sadly, I am yet to visit the cemetery, but it is famous for the inscription, “The Devonshires held this trench. The Devonshires hold it still.”
Acting Lance Corporal Robert John Antiss was born in Ivybridge and enlisted in Plymouth with the 9th (Service) Battalion of the Devonshires. He was killed in action in Ginchy on 6 September 1916, aged 25. Alongside him, and killed on the same day, was Private Martin John Damberell, known as Jack to his family and friends. Having lied about his age, Jack was only 17. His family in Ivybridge received the news that he was missing, but it was not until a year later that it was confirmed he had been killed. Both men are buried and commemorated at Delville Wood cemetery in Longueval.
It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate here, though, because the losses of the Somme reached into Parliament. Thomas Michael Kettle had served as the Member of Parliament for East Tyrone between 1906 and 1910. In 1916, he was serving as a lieutenant in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers. He was killed on 9 September 1916, aged just 36. He has no known grave, and his name is commemorated on the Thiepval memorial. Gerald Archibald Arbuthnot was, as part of a long political career, MP for Burnley for nine months in 1910. He was unfortunately killed on 25 September 1916.
Reginald Lanchbery worked in the other place as a Clerk in the Journal Office. He went to war with the Black Watch and died on 17 July 1916. Unlike Kettle, he has a known grave, at La Neuville British cemetery near Corbie. Reginald William Garton was the youngest son of an officer of the House of Commons. He was a lieutenant in the 11th South Lancashire Regiment, and was killed on 1 July. He is another one commemorated by name at Thiepval memorial.
Evelyn Walter James Johnson was the only son of a House of Commons Doorkeeper. A second lieutenant in the Bedfordshire Regiment, he was just 19 years old when he died of wounds later that month. Walter Ker Sanderson had worked in the Vote Office at the House of Commons. He served with the Border Regiment and was killed on the opening day of the battle, aged 34. He, too, is commemorated at Thiepval.
The consequences of the battle had an impact on those at the very highest political levels. The then Prime Minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, knew personally what thousands of parents across Britain were experiencing. His eldest son, Raymond Asquith, was killed during the battle and today lies at Guillemont Road cemetery.
One hundred and ten years later, those individual stories, just a few, help us to understand the numbers. Men from all different backgrounds, different ranks and different circumstances were all drawn into the same battle.
The Somme was not simply a British story. Men came from across Britain and Ireland and from across the empire. Australians, Canadians, Indians, Newfoundlanders, New Zealanders and South Africans took part. The British West Indies Regiment was represented, and men from Bermuda and Southern Rhodesia also served.
That international dimension can still be seen in the landscape. At Beaumont-Hamel, the Newfoundland memorial stands on the ground where the Newfoundland Regiment suffered devastating losses on 1 July. The memorial commemorates all 821 Newfoundland servicemen of the first world war who have no known grave. Perhaps nowhere is the scale of the battle more apparent than at Thiepval. Designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens and completed in 1932, the Thiepval memorial bears the names of more than 72,000 soldiers of the British and South African forces who died in the Somme sector and have no known grave. Around 90% of them died during the 1916 battle. Beside it lie 300 Commonwealth and 300 French servicemen in the Anglo-French cemetery, deliberately placed together as a permanent symbol of the alliance in which they fought.
Some may ask why Parliament should debate a battle 110 years after it took place. There are now no surviving veterans of the first world war to listen to our words, and those who fought at the Somme have passed well beyond living memory, as have most of their children. However, that makes our responsibility greater, not smaller. For a century, remembrance could be sustained by people who had been there, and then by the children and families who had listened directly to their stories, but, increasingly, we are the custodians of that memory. Our task is not to glorify war—anyone who stands among the graves of the Somme could scarcely do that—but to understand its cost.
In a previous debate, I spoke about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s work in encouraging families and historians to tell the stories behind those it commemorates, and that is something I feel particularly strongly about. A headstone gives us a name, a rank, a regiment and a date, but research can give us back the individual. It can tell us who their parents were, what job they did, where they lived, who they loved and what they left behind. One hundred and ten years later, we cannot know all their stories, but we can ensure that their names endure, that the places in which they rest are cared for and that future generations understand the extraordinary human cost concealed within two simple words: the Somme.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful and moving speech. I can remember being a child at high school and going on a trip to world war one battlefields. My little sister, who is 15, has never had that opportunity. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should do more to ensure that the memory lives on, by making sure that our children, grandchildren and future generations get the same opportunities to understand what happened at the Somme and throughout the world war?
Rebecca Smith
I agree with the hon. Gentleman 100%. I did not get to visit a cemetery site when I was young either, so I appreciate the situation his sister is in, but I got to when I was working for the commission. I pay tribute to my former colleagues, the public engagement co-ordinators at the commission, who go out to schools right across the country to ensure that the next generation can understand and hear some of these stories.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend concludes her powerful speech, may I, from the Dispatch Box, commend the work that she has done for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission? She mentioned those who served from around the world at the Somme. Will she also pay tribute to the 36th Ulster Division, who broke through five rounds of trenches and managed to storm the Schwaben redoubt, in the course of which, on one morning, they earned five Victoria Crosses?
Rebecca Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for that story; five Victoria Crosses is, of course, some contribution to the war. The Irish Regiment played a huge role, and I have seen some of the graves of the Inniskilling Regiment in Northern Ireland—once you have worked for the commission, you find yourself visiting cemeteries and graves on every trip abroad. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Mr Dhesi
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. This week, I had the honour and privilege of laying a wreath at the Poppies to Paddington remembrance service, which commemorated the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme. Does she agree that Great Western Railway should be congratulated for holding that service and for giving a prominent role to the 1914 Sikhs and the King’s Gurkha Artillery unit, commemorating the incredible contributions of those from around the world to the war effort?
Rebecca Smith
I absolutely agree. I use the GWR train line. I usually put a wreath on the train from Ivybridge—a place I have mentioned several times—but I am grateful to my friends at the Royal British Legion in Ivybridge, who this time laid a wreath while I was here in Westminster. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission works very hard to recognise the role of Sikhs. They have their own headstones to ensure that that is visible to the public.
I hope that today’s debate will play a small part in our remembering those words: the Somme. I also hope that it will remind Members of the vital work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in caring for the graves, cemeteries and memorials of those who died, and ensuring that their stories continue to be told. The commission maintains a stories portal, called For Evermore, which will allow Members to upload their own stories of family members, constituents or others who fell. I urge Members to do so, and to add to the 13,000 stories already told there. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members from across the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I regret that there will be an immediate five-minute time limit.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for keeping alive the memory of those brave souls to whom we owe so much. There are moments in history when forgetting becomes an injustice, when silence becomes a betrayal, and when remembrance becomes not only a simple act of respect, but a duty. The battle of the Somme is such a moment. As has already been mentioned, on 1 July, after just one day, 19,240 British soldiers lay dead. The battle continued for another 141 days, until 18 November 1916, when more than a million men across all sides had died.
Today, I want to speak about men whose extraordinary contributions have often been overlooked; those Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs who fought under the British flag and endured the same horrors and shed the same blood. Their sacrifice was no less, their courage was immense, and their place in British history must be permanent. One extraordinary example of their courage came on 14 July 1916 at High Wood, during the battle of the Somme. Across the open fields of northern France, the British 7th Dragoon Guards advanced alongside the 20th Deccan Horse of the British Indian army, which was basically full of Sikh cavalrymen.
Picture the scene: German machine guns concealed in trenches and standing crops, artillery exploding all around, and Sikh soldiers thousands of miles from the Punjab charging forward on horseback, armed with just their swords, into the face of modern machine guns. Above them, a Royal Flying Corps aircraft helped to identify concealed German positions, assisting the cavalry as they advanced. The horsemen reached enemy positions and captured prisoners but suffered terrible casualties, and the ground could not be held indefinitely. Many fell, horses fell, and families thousands of miles away would never see their loved ones again.
Those Sikh cavalrymen demonstrated extraordinary courage in one of the most remarkable mounted actions of the Somme offensive, yet how many British schoolchildren know their story? I was once one of those children, and I was never taught it. How many know that Sikh soldiers charged across the killing fields? How many know that Hindu and Muslim soldiers also fought and died for Britain, and not only at the Somme, but across the wider world war? How many know that the history of Britain’s Asian communities did not begin with immigration after 1945, but began long before? That history was written in the trenches of Flanders and on the banks of the River Somme. It was written in the blood of men who travelled halfway around the world.
A Sikh mother’s grief was no different from a British mother’s grief. A Hindu father’s sorrow was no different from a Muslim father’s sorrow. The blood of an Indian soldier was no less precious than the blood of any other man who fell. However, their recognition has not always been equal. Indeed, investigations by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission have acknowledged historical inequalities in the commemoration of predominantly non-European servicemen. We must not just confront that, but rectify it, because remembrance cannot be selective. We cannot celebrate the achievements of the British empire while forgetting the people of that empire who made those achievements possible. This is not simply Sikh, Hindu or Muslim history; it is British history, and it belongs to every one of us. That is why the contribution of Indian soldiers must be properly recognised in our schools, our museums, our memorials and our national commemorations—not as a footnote, or a token gesture, but as an inseparable part of our shared national story.
Some 110 years later, the fields of the Somme are peaceful. The crops grow where soldiers once fell, and the birds sing where artillery once thundered. The silence of those fields must never become the silence of our history. We owe those men more than a wreath once a year; we owe them the truth, we owe them recognition and we owe them a permanent place in British national memory. Let us remember the Sikh who rode towards the guns. Let us remember the Hindu who stood beside his comrades. Let us remember the Muslim who gave his life far from home. Courage has no religion, sacrifice has no colour, and remembrance must have no hierarchy. Their courage is part of our history, their sacrifice is part of our nation, and their remembrance is our responsibility. We will remember them.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is my solemn duty to break to right hon. and hon. Members that “Blackadder Goes Forth” is not a documentary. As we recall the charnel house that was the first day of the Somme, we must consider the reality and not the fiction that today surrounds the generation who suffered and sacrificed so much in the great war. To truly understand what our forefathers went through, we should look to great works such as “Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front” by the late Professor Richard Holmes. I was lucky enough to meet the professor, famous for his “War Walks” television series, during my own minor attempts to study military history. He told me that the two biggest barriers to earnest study of the first world war were the war poets—although he conceded that their testimony was valid, since they served—and “Blackadder Goes Forth”.
Those final frames of “Blackadder” captured the awful reality of death on an industrial scale—but showing every private soldier to be an economic conscript, every officer a public school toff and every general ensconced in a chateau far behind the lines? It simply was not like that. Take every public schoolboy and there still would not be enough numbers to officer the giant British Army on the western front alone. While
“‘Forward!’ he cried from the rear
And the front rank died”
is a lovely line from Pink Floyd, the “lions led by donkeys” narrative, which is set in stone today, is really a canard from the 1970s.
The creeping barrage on the first day of the Somme campaign, with the shells falling just ahead of our advancing infantry, was a failure. There is no disguising it, but it was a genuine attempt to change the tactics of a war of attrition and to give advancing infantrymen the edge in an era where technology had outpaced tactics. Our troops moved more slowly than expected, and co-ordination with the artillery in the infancy of battlefield radio communications was difficult. As we have heard, the shells failed to cut the wire in front of the German trenches, whose deep dugouts proved devastatingly effective.
General Douglas Haig would carry the can for the failure of the Somme to deliver the hoped-for decisive breakthrough, yet “the Chief”, as he was known, remained popular with his men. The reality is that the British were hard-pressed for experienced troops and matériel. Haig’s strained relationships with David Lloyd George meant that his reputation was tarnished, perhaps deliberately, as Lloyd George sought to insulate himself from blame for the Somme’s failure and the awful toll of dead and wounded. The two men observed an uneasy truce in the immediate aftermath of the armistice, and it was only after Haig’s death that Lloyd George launched his political assassination in his multi-volume war memoirs. He accused Haig of a lack of vision and flexibility, and blamed him for the “ghastly slaughter”. It was odd, though, that the Welsh wizard kept his counsel and did not depose Haig at the material time as the war raged.
None of that takes away from the huge sacrifice of British and empire troops throughout a war that spanned the globe. Perhaps the saddest aspect is that today we seem unable to answer the question of what it was all for. Ask the French. Ask the Belgians. They were invaded, and there is no whitewashing the atrocities committed against civilians by the Germans in 1914. The great war was then a war of liberation.
I leave the final word not to British generals, but to one American and one Prussian. William Sherman’s march to the sea in the American civil war saw him unleash total war on civilians. He said, “War is all hell, boys”, and, “you cannot refine it.” That is a truism echoing through human history, but what of the hellish Somme? General Erich Ludendorff, whose doctrine of an elastic, flexible defence cost us so very dear, said in his autobiography, “My War Memories”:
“As a result, we were completely exhausted on the Western Front”.
We paid a high price in blood and treasure, and while not a victory, the Somme did pave the way to ultimate triumph.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for bringing this debate to mark the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme coming to an end. That is 110 years since young men from Ipswich, Suffolk and communities across Britain bravely went into battle, facing extraordinary danger in the service of their country, but many never came home. More than a century has passed, but the sacrifice that they made and the loss suffered by their families must never be forgotten.
For many men, the Somme would be their final battle. Back home in Ipswich and Suffolk, families waited for their fathers, sons, brothers and husbands to come home; instead, they were left with the devastating news of their deaths and the knowledge that the lives they had imagined for them and with them would never be lived. They were soldiers who answered their country’s call with extraordinary courage, but they were also young men with hopes, ambitions and their whole lives ahead of them. For so many, their lives were cut tragically short on the fields of Europe. For the families left behind in Ipswich, the war did not end when the guns fell silent; it ended with a telegram through the door, an empty chair at the dinner table or a photograph of a loved one who would never come home.
More than 100 men from Ipswich lost their lives during the Somme offensive—more than 100 families in our town were left to live with a grief that no passage of time could ever fully erase—and I want to put some of their names on the record today. Private Harold Bailey was just 19 years old when he was killed—an age at which so many young people begin their adult lives, make plans and dream of their futures. Private William Attewell was 21. Private Vivian Bradley was 19. Private Walter Fiddaman was also 19. Those young men served in the Suffolk Regiment and came from our town and our county. They grew up on our streets and belonged to our communities, but they never came home.
On 3 January 1916, the 7th Battalion, Suffolk Regiment took part in a devastating attack on Ovillers. The battalion suffered 470 casualties, including all its company commanders. Among the Ipswich men lost were Benjamin Baker and Arthur Holmes. Just 12 days later, on 15 July 1916, the 4th Battalion suffered more than 200 casualties during the fighting around Bazentin Ridge and High Wood. Seventeen Ipswich men lost their lives that day. Among them were Samuel Jennings, aged 19, and Robert Lloyd, aged just 18—a young man who had a whole life ahead of him. More than 1 million men were killed over the four-month period that the fighting raged, but every single one of those deaths was a life extinguished and a family devastated.
This week, I joined hundreds of people in Ipswich to pay tribute at Christchurch Park and the fields of honour in Ipswich Old Cemetery. As the “Last Post” sounded and our town fell silent, I thought about the young men from Ipswich who had been killed on the battlefield.
Ipswich and Suffolk have a proud and enduring history of service to our country, from the Suffolk Regiment on the Somme to the radar pioneers at Bawdsey. Our town and our county have given so much to the defence of our nation, but remembrance is not simply about pride and honour, as crucial as they are; it is about grief. It is about recognising the terrible human cost of war and understanding that the freedoms we enjoy today were secured by people who paid such a heavy price that we can scarcely comprehend. They gave their tomorrow for our today, and we will remember them.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Over a century after the appalling losses on the western front, historians still debate whether any alternatives existed. Some blame political intrigue and poor generalship; others emphasise technology, with the battlefield dominated by interlocking fields of fire, which ensured that slowly advancing troops would be mown down by machine guns before making any worthwhile inroads into the enemy’s trenches. Minor advances that were occasionally achieved were usually reversed by counter-attacks or simply absorbed into a new, static confrontation a short distance from the original one.
We heard echoes of some of those controversies, with the pendulum ascribing guilt and responsibility swinging first one way, then another, in the very perceptive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper). I was first influenced by a work of fiction—a rather more in-depth work of fiction than the immensely entertaining television series to which he alluded. It was a book by a Sheffield journalist and writer called John Harris, entitled “Covenant with Death” and published in 1961.
In 1961, the people who had fought on the Somme were still living, and John Harris interviewed many of them. He says in the introduction to his great novel that although the characters are fictitious, the real people will recognise many of the incidents that he describes. The story is based on the Sheffield City Battalion. On 1 July 1916, the battalion sent 700 men over the top. The majority of them—nearly 500 men—became casualties, half of whom were killed, and only four of their officers survived the battle.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful speech. He is recognising quite properly those who were in teeth arms and running towards the ballistics and bullets coming at them, but will he also recognise the military medics? They were so important and often ran into danger, and they included Captain Noel Chavasse, who won not only the Military Cross and bar but the Victoria Cross in the Somme.
Sir Julian Lewis
Yes, indeed. I believe I am right in thinking that he won the VC twice overall—one of three people to do so—and I am delighted that my hon. and gallant Friend has put that on the record.
In more recent years, there has been a swing of the pendulum that has tried to justify the scale of loss on the Somme by saying that it was necessary for lessons to be learned for the ultimately successful campaigns of 1918. Some of the people who have put forward that proposition undoubtedly know more about the history of the first world war and its battles than I do, but I simply do not buy that. You should not have to waste the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers to learn lessons, some of which ought to have been obvious from the beginning.
One of those lessons was the need for surprise. Before 1 July 1916, there was a seven-day bombardment by British artillery on the Somme. Everybody knew what was going to happen and where it was going to happen. In 1918, at the start of the successful 100 days offensive—the phenomenal, brilliantly fought campaign that led to Germany suing for armistice in November 1918—everybody had secrecy impressed on them. Every officer and man had a passbook in which it was deemed essential that they must not say anything about what preparations were being made.
Similarly, when the Germans mounted their spring offensive in March 1918—which, for a while, looked as if it could have put Britain out of the war—one of the reasons it succeeded was that they too had an element of surprise. They had three alternative plans and decided on one of them, the Operation Michael attack, very much at the last minute before it was launched. You did not have to be a strategic genius to know that you needed an element of surprise in order to achieve tactical success. Similarly, the lessons of the Somme were not learned very quickly, because the same thing happened again in April 1918 with the second battle of Arras and, later in the year, with the third battle of Ypres, known as Passchendaele.
Let me conclude by quoting someone who was not an amateur historian: a man called Sholto Douglas, who later became Marshal of the Royal Air Force. He stated that, as he looked down from his aircraft at the field of Passchendaele in 1917, his mind was full of the sort of questions that many people have asked about the futility of the tactics. He said then, and I agree with him now, that those questions are very, very difficult to answer.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), both for securing this debate and for the way in which she introduced it.
In Edinburgh South West, we have the Heart of Midlothian memorial clock, something that defines Haymarket. If Members do not know, Heart of Midlothian is perhaps Scotland’s finest football team—or even the UK’s. [Laughter.] Sorry, I should not have laughed there. Every year, former Hearts players gather at the memorial clock alongside club staff, fans from across the city and local Gorgie residents to remember the incredible sacrifice that Hearts players and fans made on the frontline.
For those who are not familiar with the story, Hearts players led by example when Sir George McCrae, a popular Edinburgh figure and former MP—he was in this place between 1899 and 1909—announced that he would raise a battalion to fight in the war, the 16th (Service) Battalion of the Royal Scots. In November 1914, Hearts comfortably led the first division, having started the 1914-15 season with eight straight victories, including a thumping defeat of the reigning champions Celtic—even in a time-limited debate, I had to mention that. That streak coincided with the beginning of world war one and a debate about whether or not football should be taking place at all. Sixteen Hearts players signed up, along with players from Hibernian, Raith Rovers, Falkirk, Dunfermline Athletic, East Fife and St Bernard’s. McCrae’s was the first of the so-called footballers’ pals battalions to be raised during the war. Some 500 Hearts supporters and ticket holders enlisted, alongside 150 from Hibs, rugby players, cricketers, swimmers, hockey players, golfers and even a bodybuilder.
Then came the Somme. None could have expected that McCrae’s battalion would suffer 229 dead or missing on the first day, with a further 347 wounded. That was a small part of the tens of thousands who were killed or wounded on that first day, but the toll on Hearts and the wider Edinburgh community was immense. Many bodies were never recovered, including the remains of Harry Wattie, a Hearts striker and arguably the best inside forward in Scotland at the time.
John Cooper
The hon. Member is making a very eloquent speech about the sacrifice of Scottish football. Did he share my disappointment at the weekend when the two-minute silence at Celtic was interrupted after only 13 seconds?
Dr Arthur
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I heard that news from someone in this place who had also heard about it—somebody who does not live in Scotland—and I was absolutely ashamed to hear it.
The 16th Royal Scots made great inroads into the German line, more than any other British battalion, but that was little comfort to the families who lost their sons. The losses of McCrae’s battalion were a small but significant component of the 1 million casualties in the 141 days of that battle. When Hearts unveiled the memorial clock at Haymarket in 1922, a crowd of 65,000 people gathered to honour that remarkable sacrifice. They were told that the nation owed a debt of gratitude to Hearts that could never be repaid. At the weekend, I was proud to attend a service at the memorial clock alongside hundreds of other people. Many of them were Hearts supporters—Jambos—but many of them were people who just live locally and wanted to take part in an act of remembrance.
I was proud to be at that remembrance service, but I was even more proud to see pupils from Tynecastle high school, Balerno high school and George Watson’s college take part in it. A few days before, I attended another remembrance service at Firrhill high school in Edinburgh South West, which was entirely led by the young people there, apart from a small introduction by the headmaster. What is special about that school is that it is directly across the road from Redford infantry barracks. The young people who led the service read out the names of people who had died on that day, 6 November, during the first world war. All the names were of people who were 17, 18 or 19 years old, some of them perhaps even younger than the pupils who were reading out the names, and most of them just a few months or years older.
Taking part in that service and being so close to the barracks was a real reminder of the impact of war. We talk about conflict, perhaps within 1,000 days, but I would hate for any of those young people to have to take part in a war. It was a reminder to me that in this place, we should always focus on peace, not war.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a privilege to rise in this House today to speak on behalf of the good, decent, salt-of-the-earth people of my constituency of Strangford, and indeed for the loyal people right across Northern Ireland.
When we look at the history of our Province, there is a golden thread of loyalty, duty and unyielding resolve that runs from the fields of France in 1916 right through to the present day. Over a century ago, when King and country called, the men of Ulster did not hesitate. They stepped forward in their thousands—from the shipyards of Belfast, the farms of the Ards peninsula and the towns and villages across Ulster—and on 1 July 1916, at the battle of the Somme, the 36th (Ulster) Division paid the ultimate price. They charged into the teeth of the German guns at Thiepval wood and the Schwaben redoubt. Over 5,000 men were killed, wounded or missing in the first 48 hours alone. They shed their blood so that tyranny would not prevail, and so that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland might remain free.
To truly understand the soul of Ulster, one does not need to read a history book; one only needs to walk through the towns and villages of the constituency of Strangford and look at the names carved into the stones of the war memorials. Every name tells a story of a young life laid down on the altar of freedom. Picture, as other Members have done, 1 July 1916 in the damp, chalky trenches of Thiepval wood. Imagine a young lad from Newtownards—let us call him Lance Corporal David John Thompson.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Gentleman is giving a typically impassioned speech. Will he join me in reflecting on not just the service of those who fought in the Somme, but their families left at home, who were thinking of them at those most difficult of times?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me that chance to gain some composure.
Picture Lance Corporal David John Thompson, serving proudly with the 13th Battalion, Royal Irish Rifles—the County Down volunteers. As the clock ticks towards half-past 7 in the morning and the deafening roar of the British artillery barrage shakes the very earth beneath their feet, young David’s mind is not in France; his heart is back home in County Down. He can almost smell the air drifting off Strangford lough—there is nothing quite like a breath of air from Strangford lough. He remembers the quiet mornings walking past Scrabo tower, which stands sentinel over the town; the warmth of his mother’s kitchen; and the familiar faces in Conway Square in Newtownards. He longs for the peace of home, for his Sunday morning service at First Ards Presbyterian church, and for the simple, honest life he left behind when he answered his King’s call.
Yet, as he looks down the trenches at the pale, mud-streaked faces of the young men under his command—fellas he grew up with in Newtownards, Comber and Donaghadee —fear gives way to duty. He knows that the whistle is about to blow. He knows that climbing over the parapet means walking into a storm of German machine gun fire. He has no desire to die in a foreign land, yet he is entirely prepared to do so. Why? Because Lance Corporal David John Thompson understands that the freedom of his family back in Newtownards, the preservation of the British way of life and the defeat of tyranny are worth a great price. He is willing, along with others, to pay that price for that which he honours more than his own life.
So, when that shrill whistle blows, 19-year-old Lance Corporal Thompson does not hesitate. With his Lee-Enfield rifle gripped tight, standing beside his brothers in arms with Orange sashes beneath many of their tunics, he climbs into no man’s land, shouting over the din to rally his boys forward. He leads them across the cratered earth towards the Schwaben redoubt, not out of hatred for the men in front of him but out of an unshakeable love for the home and the country he has left behind. He pays the ultimate price at 19 years of age. That is the calibre of the men of Ulster: young men who loved their homes fiercely, yet loved their duty and their freedom even more.
Captain Wilfrid Spender said:
“I am not an Ulsterman, but yesterday, the 1st July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world. My pen cannot describe adequately the hundreds of heroic acts I witnessed. The Ulster Volunteer Force, from which the Division was made, has won a name that equals any in history. Their devotion deserves the gratitude of the British empire.”
What lovely words from a man who witnessed that attack of the 36th (Ulster) Division.
The blood of those who fell at the Somme runs through the very veins of the people I represent. We carry their legacy with pride and their resolve in our hearts. Come what may, the people of Ulster will continue to stand unbowed and unbroken for freedom, for the rule of law, for our Christian faith and for God, and for this precious United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For us, “We will remember them,” is not just a phrase; it is always our promise.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is a real honour to follow the moving speech of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
It is a privilege to speak in the debate marking the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme. As is the case for many hon. Members in the Chamber, the impacts of the first world war are still felt in my constituency generations later. It is with a sense of sorrow and pride that we see family members’ names on those war memorials. We promise to remember them and their sacrifice and never to allow such a tragedy to happen again. The scale of the lives lost at the Somme is larger than most of us can comprehend. We commend the strength and bravery of those who sacrificed their futures to protect our country and honour them by marking the anniversary of this battle.
For my constituency, this anniversary has a special significance, because the town of Ulverston is twinned with Albert, a town at the heart of the Somme in France. The relationship between the two towns stretches back decades and has been built on friendship, exchange and a shared commitment to remembering those affected by the war. Every year, people from Ulverston travel to Albert, and residents of Albert often visit Ulverston, not simply to commemorate but to strengthen the ties between our two communities. What began with remembrance has grown into genuine friendship.
One of the most remarkable links between our towns was the discovery of the Ulverston trench near Albert. During research into the battlefields, an historical trench map was found showing a trench bearing the name of Ulverston. A memorial now stands there, serving as a lasting reminder of the connection between our community and the Somme. I am immensely proud that that site, once associated with conflict, has become somewhere people can come together in remembrance.
More than a century on, British, German and French people come together as friends, determined to ensure that the sacrifices of the past are not forgotten. The twinning of Ulverston and Albert shows how remembrance can bring people together and how communities can build lasting bonds, even from the darkest chapters of our shared history.
I will take the opportunity to commend our brave service personnel currently deployed around the world. We are grateful for the service and sacrifice that they and their families make on behalf of this country. The Government recognise that our duty to those who serve does not end when they leave the armed forces. That is why we are working to strengthen support for our veterans through better access to housing, healthcare, employment and welfare services.
I particularly welcome the roll-out of the Valour programme in Cumbria, which will help create a more joined-up and accessible network of support for veterans and their families. My fellow Cumbrian Labour MPs and I have been campaigning for stronger, locally delivered veterans’ services, so it is encouraging to see the commitment backed with investment and action. Programmes such as Valour recognise that many veterans face challenges long after their service has ended and that support should be easy to access. As we remember those who served at the Somme and in conflicts throughout our history, it is right that we also reaffirm our commitment to the men and women who serve today and to the veterans who continue to make such a valuable contribution to communities across our country.
I want to commend my former school, Ulverston Victoria high school, which has done incredible work over the years not only by commemorating the war through remembrance services, but by bringing together the lives of all those we lost in Ulverston—all those young boys and men who went to war—and looking at their backgrounds, their histories and where they worked before they joined the Army. Just for one moment, over the couple of weeks before Remembrance Day, it brings the lives of those young men back together in a way that the students at the school can understand. I pass on my thanks to the school for all the work it does on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Unfortunately, we have to go down to a four-minute time limit.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who lost their lives during the battle of the Somme, one of the deadliest battles ever fought. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for her opening remarks, and the Members who have spoken before me.
On Sunday I attended the service of remembrance and reconciliation at Christ church in Coalville. The most poignant part was when I heard the roll call of the people from the community who paid the ultimate price. It was moving to see the Elizabeth Tower lit up over the weekend to commemorate the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, and to share five personal stories from across the country. Thanks must go to Mr Speaker, alongside the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which organised it. Mr Speaker said:
“Seeing the faces of these brave people from the Somme on the most iconic landmarks in the country is incredibly moving—faces of ordinary folk who had a future, only for it to be cut short by war.”
One of those folk was Esmée—Barbara Esmée St John— who was from my constituency. Esmée was born in Ashby and volunteered with the Red Cross during the first world war, serving in the No. 26 General Hospital at Etaples, on the French channel coast, which made up the largest centre for medical care of British and Commonwealth service personnel on the western front. Following the opening of the battle of the Somme, Esmée managed a 35-bed surgical ward, working 13-hour days with only a young orderly, just 17 years old, to assist her.
Only a few months later, Esmée tragically caught scarlet fever and died from complications. She was buried with full military honours at the Wimereux communal cemetery. Sadly, the infectious nature of her illness meant that her burial could not be delayed for her family to attend, as was the case for so many. In 1918, Esmée’s father supplied her photograph to the Imperial War Museum, expressing pride that she would be among the brave women and hard workers who will never be forgotten. Esmée’s story is just one of the many examples of the brave women who worked tirelessly and courageously to help soldiers on the frontline, and I am pleased that her vital contribution was recognised.
As North West Leicestershire is home to a rich mining heritage, I also want to talk about the role that miners played in the battle. I read a 2016 article from Mining Magazine about tunnelling companies, which were specialist units in the British Army that were formed to dig under enemy lines. Among them were the “Famous Fifty”—specially selected volunteers from the Coalville area of Leicestershire who went to fight on the western front in 1914. They marched from St John the Baptist church in Hugglescote to the train station in Coalville, with thousands of people cheering them on. Because of their mining background, many of the men became tunnellers, but only 22 of them ever returned. Miners had a particularly useful skillset in the battle of the Somme, because the harder chalk formations under the ground were more suited to their expertise. The volunteers were exceptionally brave and typically worked in spaces that were about 60 cm wide and just over 1 metre high, with the constant risk of the tunnel collapsing.
At the start of the battle of the Somme, two separate tunnels were painstakingly dug, with 900 men working on each. They packed 40,000 lbs of explosives in one and 60,000 lbs in the other, with the blast intended to rip through the ground creating a 450-foot-wide crater. However, German soldiers had detected the tunnelling. The blast was so powerful that the German soldiers were killed, but as the British infantry flowed over the top, they were massacred by German machine guns.
With honour, I dedicate my speech to the miners and women who were at the battle of the Somme, whom we will never forget and who, alongside our brave military personnel, paid the ultimate price.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for bringing forward this debate, and for her work on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and commemoration.
The Somme carries particular significance for north Cumbria because of the Lonsdale Pals, formerly the 11th Battalion of the Border Regiment. Raised by the 5th Earl of Lonsdale shortly after the outbreak of war, it was one of the earliest pals battalions authorised by the War Office. Men from Carlisle, Penrith, Workington, Whitehaven, Kendal and communities across Cumberland and Westmorland enlisted together. They were neighbours, workmates, fellow parishioners, but they trained together and went to war together. That bond gave the battalion a powerful identity, but it also meant that, when casualties came, entire communities shared the loss. It was my privilege to lay the wreath at the county memorial last weekend on behalf of all Cumbria’s MPs, who represent the former counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.
On the opening day, the 11th Battalion attacked the Leipzig salient near Thiepval and suffered devastating casualties. Among those killed was Corporal Stephen Putland, who was born and lived in Carlisle. His name is recorded on the Upperby war memorial in Carlisle and on the Thiepval memorial to the missing. He was not the only man to be lost that day. John McDivitt, John Nevin, James Jardine Wilson and Company Sergeant Major John Sewell were also lost. On the battle’s final day, further tragedy struck the pals. The battalion attacked German positions at Redan ridge, and among those killed was Colour Sergeant Major Robert Lorimer. His body was never recovered, and his name, too, is commemorated at Thiepval.
Another man whose story is particularly personal to me is Harry Wilfred Lowthian, who served with the Lonsdale Pals during the Somme. My research suggests he would have been a distant relative of mine, and also the brother or nephew of Ernest Lowthian, Labour’s first candidate for the parliamentary seat of Carlisle.
Earlier this year, I had the privilege of visiting France and Belgium with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I visited Thiepval and several other sites, including Serre Road cemetery No. 2, which deserves a particular mention. It is the largest cemetery on the Somme battlefields, and standing among its rows of headstones is a powerful reminder of the immense loss in that battle. The visit also gave me a much deeper appreciation of the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which cares for 1.7 million Commonwealth service personnel—not their graves, but the personnel—who died in battle. It maintains graves, cemeteries and memorials at more than 23,000 locations in over 150 countries.
I was particularly struck by the work of the commission’s recovery unit in recovering and identifying those still being discovered on battlefields today, more than a century later. The team carefully excavate, record remains, examine personal possessions and match them with military records, battalion diaries and wartime maps. Matching that with DNA can often establish the soldier’s identity over 100 years later. It is painstaking but vital work.
As we mark 110 years since the Somme, we remember Corporal Stephen Putland, Robert Lorimer, Harry Wilfred Lowthian and the men of the Lonsdale Pals. We remember all those from across Cumbria, across the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth, and our allies, who served and sacrificed. Their names live on in memorials and family histories, and through the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is our duty to ensure that their stories continue to be told and that their sacrifice is never diminished by the passage of time.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for giving us this opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents, past and present. I am honoured to speak on behalf of the people of South Derbyshire and to remember those who gave so much.
I am particularly moved by the story of brothers Henry and William Barnett, both of whom died on the first day of the battle of the Somme. Their parents were William and Geraldine Barnett of 37 Market Street in Swadlincote. William, the younger brother, who was a shop assistant, was the first to join up. He enlisted in Church Gresley, and by 25 June 1915 was in France. Henry, who was a sink maker, enlisted on 26 March 1915, and when he was posted to France in December 1915 the two brothers were reunited on the western front. Both served as privates in the first line of the 5th Battalion of the Sherwood Foresters, and they were both killed during an attack on the German positions at Gommecourt. They are commemorated alongside one another on the memorial to the missing at Thiepval.
In May, I was invited by Shelly Lynn and Joanne Abbassi, two volunteers for the charity In From the Cold Project, to visit the Commonwealth War Graves Commission site in Church Gresley in my constituency. The In From The Cold Project was formed more than 20 years ago to research and identify all servicemen and servicewomen missing from the official Commonwealth War Graves Commission list of casualties from the first and second world wars. Their task is to get these soldiers, sailors and airmen their due recognition, even after the passing of so many years.
I was moved by the dedication and diligence of the volunteers in ensuring that all the fallen have a marked Commonwealth war grave, but a passing comment about council charges that are paid out of the volunteers’ own pockets sent me and my team off into a conversation with the Local Government Association to see whether we could seek agreement from local authorities to waive the fees in these special circumstances. I want to give special recognition and a shout-out to Antony Cobley, in my team, who helped make that happen. I am pleased to share with the House that an agreement was reached with the LGA and its new guidance is that fees should be waived across England. Council Matt Boughton, who is chair of the LGA’s safer and stronger communities committee, said:
“Preserving the links between local communities and those who served and died in conflict is an important part of ensuring future generations continue to understand and remember their sacrifice. While often modest, charges for record searches can present an additional barrier to organisations trying to identify the final resting places of service personnel. Lifting these charges where they relate to service personnel, which many councils have already done, is a good way to help ensure those who lost their lives in service receive the recognition and commemoration they deserve.”
We will never know where so many servicemen and servicewomen from the Somme, world war one, world war two and subsequent wars rest, but all parties are committed to working to ensure that as many unmarked graves are now marked so that we can commemorate those lost for so long. We will remember them.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
On the first day of the battle of the Somme, 1 July 1916, 19,240 British men lost their lives. It was the single bloodiest day in the history of the British Army. The Sherwood Foresters, some 2,000 men from across Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, started the battle with an assault on Gommecourt. I have been able to identify at least 12 names of young men from across Ilkeston, Long Eaton and Sandiacre, who were killed on that first day alone. The eldest, James Mann, was 41. He worked in the lace industry and left behind his wife Flora and their five children. The youngest man who was killed, Arthur Robinson, had only just turned 20. He lived with his sister and her family at 105 Bennett Street in Long Eaton.
Looking over these lists, it was seeing exactly where they lived that struck me the most. The first world war was so long ago now, it is almost a different world. The numbers of dead and wounded at the Somme alone are so large as to be incomprehensible, squeezing from view the individual, human stories that were lived by each and every one of the people who were there, but the thing about knowing which house Arthur lived in is that that house is still there. I have knocked on that door. I have delivered leaflets through it. Twenty-year-old Arthur Robinson knew the streets that I know. He lived across the road from my mates Howard and Margaret. Long Eaton has changed a lot, certainly, in the more than a century that has gone by since he gave his life, but it is still the same place. I get similar feelings when I look at the list of young men killed from Ilkeston. I see Naylors and Beardsleys and Mees, local surnames that I still see regularly everywhere, from my Facebook comments to our council ballot papers.
It should not be a surprise that this information exists and is there to be found. Despite the first world war having ended so long ago, we make a vow every November that we will remember them and we hold true to that vow. The two world wars draw further into history all the time, but I think our remembrance events in Ilkeston, Long Eaton and the surrounding villages are better attended every year. In Draycott, the homes of soldiers who died in the first world war are marked with their own small, individual memorials on each doorstep, reminding us of the time that our world was their world. They were sent off from terraced streets in Derbyshire to the fields of France and Belgium, where they endured the most unbelievable hardships; suffering so great that the very least we can do now is remember them.
There is plenty of history written about grand acts of strategic brilliance or incompetence, depending on one’s opinion—about noble generals and the aristocrats and industrialists who dominated this place at that time, and the balance of power between the great empires fighting over who got to have the biggest navy or which African colony they got to control—but that is not why people piled into Ilkeston and Long Eaton town centres on Sunday. What we pledge to remember are the hundreds of thousands of working-class men, so many of them so young, who were sent abroad to fight in those great wars. We should remember who they were: their names, what families they came from, where they lived and where they worked. We should remember them not just for dying but for living—for being the people that they were. We should remember that for as long as we can, no matter how long ago it was. If we remember them like that, then the history stops being faraway and abstract; it stays real in our hearts and minds and helps us prevent such tragedies from ever occurring again.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to talk about the Cornish men and women who were in the Somme and involved in the first world war. There were 6,300 deaths of people from Cornwall in world war one. Many of them signed up to the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry. There were a number of battalions from Cornwall that fought in the Somme, and the 63rd (Royal Naval) Division fought in the latter stages of the war as well. There was an article in the Royal Cornwall Gazette on 26 October 1916, which was an account sent by someone from the front, who said that they were mocked by the Germans because they knew where they were from; the Germans asked them if they had any Cornish pasties. Even over there, the Cornish were known and recognised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for talking about the tunnellers. They were coalminers where my hon. Friend is from, but those from Cornwall were tin miners. The Royal Engineer tunnelling companies worked in silence so that they were not heard; they could hear the Germans above them, apparently sometimes talking about how long it was since they had held their wives—they were that close. On the first day of the Somme, 19 charges were detonated under German frontlines, many of those tunnels having been built by the miners from my constituency and my hon. Friend’s.
The saddest thing is that many of those who managed to survive the Somme and the first world war came back to Cornwall and carried on working in the mines, and only a year later, on 20 October 1919, five of them were killed in the Levant mining disaster, in which 31 people died when the mine collapsed. It is a terrible sadness.
I know some of those stories because last week I saw the historians of Penair school, who have won the Western Front Association Malcolm Doolin local history prize for bringing the stories to life in a magical way. They used AI to make films about some of the people who fought in the Somme and the first world war—tunnellers from Cornwall—and said they had become very close to the men because many of them were only a year or two older than they are now. The way they brought them to life was magical. I am proud of the historians from Penair. They have been here for the past couple of days; they went to the ceremony at the Cenotaph yesterday and paraded there.
I am contributing to this debate simply to remember the men of Cornwall who died in the Somme, of whom there were many, and to give our great thanks for all that they did and all that they gave.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this debate and for her powerful opening speech. I join her in thanking all those Members of this House, along with House staff, who gave their lives for our freedom in the battle of the Somme and in the entirety of the first and second world wars.
One of the great things about speaking last is having the opportunity to reflect on what has already been said in the debate. It is telling that we are talking about events that happened 110 years ago, yet the emotion from those who have spoken has been raw, real and clear to see. That highlights the enormity of the battle and of the sacrifice made by those men who lost their lives.
My interest in this topic was first awakened when I visited the war graves in France—like many—with my parents when I was younger. Like the hon. Member for South West Devon, I was struck by the graves that did not have names—the unknown soldier—and by the graves, quite concerningly, that had more than one soldier in them. That was incredibly powerful.
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have got my information from trusted sources, but my numbers might be slightly wrong. In stark contrast to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), Harlow in 1916 was, it is fair to say, a very different place from today. In fact, my constituency was a collection of villages under the banner of Epping. Members will all know who the Member of Parliament for Epping was during the second world war.
According to the information I have from a trusted source, 13 men from Harlow were killed in the battle of the Somme, with two killed on the first day—two of the 19,240 British soldiers killed on that first day. However, looking at all the villages that have since combined to become Harlow, I suspect that the numbers were greater. Among those who died, some of whom were from Potter Street, were Private Walter Wheeler of the Essex Regiment, Private Thomas W. J. Baldock of the East Surrey Regiment and Private Henry Ayton.
I want to focus specifically on one soldier who died in the battle of the Somme. Eight years ago, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of the first world war, Your Harlow, our local online newspaper, brought together local councillors and community champions to read out the stories of the individuals who had lost their life in the first world war. I am running short of time, but I just want to mention Thomas Lewis, who was born in Great Parndon in 1895. He was one of 10 children, one of whom died at birth.
Private Lewis enlisted at Warley and joined the 1st Battalion of the Bedfordshire Regiment. His regiment was involved in the battle of the Somme, specifically the attack on High Wood on 20 August 1916 and the capture of Falfemont farm between 3 and 6 September 1916. Thomas died of his wounds on 13 September at the age of 21.
I want to quickly thank the Harlow branch of the Royal British Legion for the commemorative service that it held over the weekend. It was particularly poignant to hear the names of Thomas, Cyril and Francis Riley—three brothers who died in the first world war. We will remember them.
I apologise for going over time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Which brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for introducing this debate, for her work on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and for her powerful speech. Of course, we have heard powerful speeches and testimonies from all Members today. The significance of today’s debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme is something on which Members from across this House can agree. It is an opportunity to remember, to honour and to commemorate those who fought, suffered and gave their lives in the service of this country and in defence of the freedoms that we enjoy today.
The battle of the Somme was not simply a battle fought in a distant field in northern France; it was a moment that reached into every town, every village and every family across our country, changing lives forever. Communities across my constituency felt that loss as keenly as anywhere else. It was one of the largest and deadliest battles of the first world war. More than 1 million soldiers were killed or wounded during the campaign, and the first day remains the bloodiest day in British military history. Despite taking place more than a century ago, the Somme retains a powerful place in our national memory, symbolising not only the terrible human cost of war and the loss of so many young lives, but the extraordinary courage of ordinary men.
Across the country stand memorials to those who served and those who never came home. In my constituency, memorials stand in Walton-on-Thames, Thames Ditton, Long Ditton, Esher, Claygate, Hersham, East Molesey, West Molesey and Oatlands. The names engraved on those memorials are more than inscriptions on stone—they were sons, brothers, husbands, workmates and neighbours. Each name represents a life cut short, a family left to grieve, and a community forever changed.
This history is woven deeply into the history of my constituency. At Hare Hill in Walton-on-Thames stood the Australian auxiliary hospital, where thousands of wounded Australian and New Zealand soldiers were treated during the war. Walton-on-Thames became a place of recovery, rehabilitation and refuge, forging lasting links between our community and the Anzac story that endure to this day. Hurst Park played an important role in the war effort, as troops assembled and trained before deployment overseas. The roads, parks and open spaces of my constituency became part of a national effort that touched every aspect of local life.
The East Surrey Regiment played its own role in the Somme campaign. On the opening day of the battle, Captain Wilfred Percy Nevill encouraged his men to kick footballs across no man’s land as they advanced towards the German lines as a way to boost morale and remind the soldiers of home. It is an important reminder that these men were ordinary people from communities like ours, whose courage, comradeship and resilience carried them through. We should never lose sight of the individual lives behind the figures. That is why commemoration matters.
On Remembrance Sunday, I had the pleasure of visiting the Molesey Royal British Legion, and I shared a glass of port with the veterans from the Royal Artillery. Paul Morriss, the secretary and treasurer to the committee, and I spoke for a while about the remarkable work of Richard Dunning, who is the founder of the Lochnagar Crater Foundation. He is a Surrey man who in the 1970s purchased the Lochnagar crater—one of the most significant surviving sites of the Somme battlefield. He visited Lochnagar in the early 1970s, spoke of a feeling of profound connection to the site and determined that it should be protected. He acquired the crater and dedicated himself to preserving it as a permanent memorial.
Today it ensures that future generations understand not only what happened on those battlefields, but why it matters. I am pleased that my son, who is in year 9, visited the Lochnagar crater this year, as so many schoolchildren across the country do. I pay tribute to my local schools, teachers and all educators who pass those stories on, and to those who tend and protect these historic sites so that we may remember. The stories shared with me remind us that remembrance is not a passive act but that it requires active stewardship, education and commitment.
Anniversaries such as this are also a chance to consider our responsibilities today. If we are sincere in honouring those who served, that sincerity must extend to how we treat those who serve our country today. Veterans are too often being let down. It is a scandal that those who put their lives on the line in defence of our liberty and democracy still find themselves falling through gaps in support. We have long argued that those who serve our country deserve a fair deal. That means improving military housing, strengthening support and compensation for service personnel, and ensuring that veterans are never taken for granted.
We must do more to support veterans’ mental health. Too many former servicemen and women continue to live with the consequences of their experience, often in silence. Access to mental health services should be timely, effective and available when needed. Just as importantly, we must continue to challenge the stigma that prevents people from seeking help in the first place. Supporting our veterans is not charity; it is a responsibility.
Before I conclude, I would like to add two remarks about the lessons that we must take from any discussion about what happened 110 years ago. First, as we reflect on the tragedy of young lives lost, families torn apart and communities hollowed out, it is a reminder of the importance of the work we do to stop conflict and violence around the world today, so that families now do not face the same heartbreak. In an increasingly insecure world, let us remember that cost and commit ourselves to the pursuit of peace and the prevention of conflict, while being clear-eyed about the threats and dangers present.
The Somme marked a technological breakthrough. It was the first time the British deployed tanks in battle, and it saw the emergence of large-scale aerial operations. These would become familiar features in warfare over the next century. Today we stand at another cusp of technological revolution in warfare. We must all reflect on what is needed now to address not only the challenges we presently face but the new challenges that these technologies will bring.
As we mark the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, let us remember not only the scale of the battle but the people behind it. Let us remember, too, the contribution of the wider Commonwealth. Their contribution was immense, yet too often their stories have been under-represented in our commemorations and historical memory. If we are to tell the story of the Somme honestly and completely, we must ensure that their sacrifice is recognised fully and woven into our national memory.
Let us remember the wounded Anzac troops who found recovery and refuge in Walton-on-Thames. Let us remember the men who marched from places such as Hurst Park. Let us remember those who kicked footballs across the battlefield. One hundred and ten years later, the voices of that generation are gone, but the duty to remember them is ours. As long as their names remain carved in stone, as long as their stories remain in our communities and as long as this nation values the freedoms for which they sacrificed so much, they will not be forgotten. We honour them today, we thank them and we will remember them always.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is an honour to sum up this debate on the day after Armistice Day, although it is a genuine shame that, yet again, no Reform MP has chosen to take part, especially as some of them regard themselves as authorities on world war one. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) was here, and she clearly really knows what she is talking about.
The battle of the Somme took place between 1 July and 18 November 1916, during which both sides between them suffered over 1 million casualties. Of that total, over 400,000 were British and Commonwealth troops, including over 130,000 who were killed. The strategy for an Anglo-French offensive had been agreed between the respective commanders, Lord Haig and General Joffre, at the Chantilly staff conference some months previously. However, when the attack was launched in July, it was a costly failure.
In the 110 years that have passed since, a great deal has been written about what happened. However, the fundamental reason for the failure of the Somme offensive, especially in the British sector, was the highly over-optimistic assumptions about the effect of artillery on prepared defensive positions that had been skilfully chosen by German generals and engineers months previously. As John Keegan, in his authoritative history of the first world war, summed it up, the Germans
“had driven dugouts thirty feet below ground, impervious to artillery fire, provisioned to withstand siege and linked to the rear by buried telephone cable and deep communication trenches….They had made themselves secure.”
Moreover, the German defenders regularly rehearsed dashing up from their well-protected dugouts to man their defensive positions and, crucially, setting up their machine guns with carefully calibrated interlocking fields of fire in rapid time. It was a feat that the allied planners thought impossible, as they believed that all such positions, including dense belts of barbed wire, would effectively have been destroyed by a massive preliminary bombardment —one that also effectively surrendered any element of strategic or even operational surprise. Even worse, many of the shells failed to explode.
For many men, the Somme was their first experience of combat, and their last. The 19 or so British divisions that took part in the initial assault were a mixture of old soldiers and new. Four divisions—the 4th, 7th, 8th and 29th—comprised largely veterans, including men who had survived the original battles as part of the British Expeditionary Force in 1914, or had served at Gallipoli. As a former Territorial Army infantry officer myself, I should also point out that four more—the 46th, 48th, 49th and 56th—were territorial divisions, whereas the bulk of the remaining 11 divisions largely comprised idealistic civilian volunteers who answered the famous call from the Secretary of State for War, Field Marshal Lord Kitchener: “Your Country Needs You”. Many of those men comprised Kitchener’s army and volunteered to fight alongside their fellow workmates or townsfolk in the so-called Pals battalions, enticed into the recruiting office by the promise that those who joined together would serve together.
On 24 June, British artillery commenced a seven-day bombardment of the German defences, utilising around 1,000 field guns and almost 500 heavy artillery pieces. During that preparatory barrage, approximately 1.5 million shells were fired and confidence was high among British commanders, with General Sir Henry Rawlinson reportedly stating:
“nothing could exist at the conclusion of the bombardment in the area covered by it.”
Tragically, he was wrong.
Ms Minns
I will be brief. As the right hon. Member mentioned the shells, I want to put on the record our gratitude for the many women back home who made those shells—the Canary Girls—in highly dangerous work and whose skin became discoloured as a result. Does he back my campaign for those women to have a memorial at the royal arboretum?
Mr Francois
Without hesitation.
Captain Siegfried Sassoon MC, one of the famous war poets, wrote in his diary on 1 July 1916:
“We had breakfast at 6.—the morning is brilliantly fine—after a mist early. Since 6:30 there has been hell let loose. The air vibrates with the incessant din—the whole earth shakes & rocks & throbs—It is one continuous roar—Machine guns tap & rattle—bullets whistling over head—small fry quite outdone by the gangs of hooligan shells, that dash over to rend the German line”.
On a personal note, as a student on the King’s College London MA war studies course studying the first world war, I went on a departmental tour to the Somme battlefield in 1987. I was then aged 22. We were awakened early in the morning, given a hot breakfast, taken out to the site of the then British frontline, given a tot of rum and then listened as whistles were blown at H-hour at 0730. It was exactly as it was intended to be: a deeply affecting experience and one that I will never forget.
Given the relative inexperience of around half the assaulting divisions, British tactical instructions placed considerable emphasis on troops advancing steadily in line so as to maintain order and discipline. Troops were generally ordered to walk and not run on the assumption that the defenders would either have likely been killed, or so stunned as to be incapable of offering effective resistance. However, in the southern part of the British sector, some British officers who were sceptical of their artillery’s ability to suppress the German defenders ordered their troops to lie out in the open just prior to the assault, and then rush the German lines as soon as the barrage had lifted. Some of these units achieved at least local tactical surprise in reaching their initial objectives before the well-drilled German infantry could react in time. Sadly, however, that was the exception rather than the rule.
In the majority of cases, the German defenders, exactly as they had rehearsed many times, won
“the race to the parapet”
and then rained down a literally murderous fire on the slowly advancing British infantry, who had been assured by their senior commanders that what they were about to experience could not happen. Even among those units who made it to the German lines, they frequently discovered the wire still uncut while being raked by multiple machine guns, still stuck in no man’s land.
The eventual outcome in terms of loss of life was catastrophic. On the first day alone, over 19,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were killed and a further 38,000 became casualties in what to this day represents the single bloodiest day in the history of the British Army. By that evening, some battalions, in particular the inexperienced pals battalions, had effectively ceased to exist.
Despite the failure of the initial assault, British commanders pressed on over the next several months, resulting in a number of heroic actions, such as the Australians at Pozières and the South Africans at Delville—or Devil’s—Wood. Nevertheless, by the time the offensive was finally abandoned on 18 November, the maximum limit of the advance was some seven miles, for which the British Army alone had lost some 130,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers killed and more than twice as many wounded. In total, including combatants on all sides, over 1 million men were either killed, wounded, taken prisoner or went missing over the course of the battle, which lasted a total of 141 days. One of those wounded on the German side was a Bavarian corporal named Adolf Hitler.
Men of all ages bravely fought and died, in many cases literally side by side, during the Somme. The oldest confirmed British fatality was Lieutenant Henry Webber of the 7th Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment, who was 67 when he was killed on 21 July. Members of this House and the other place also lost their lives, as did Lieutenant Raymond Asquith, son of the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, who was killed in action on 15 September. In contrast, the youngest British soldier to perish was Private Horace Iles of the 15th Battalion the West Yorkshire Regiment, the Leeds Pals, who fell on the first day, aged just 16, having initially lied about his age at the recruiting office months before.
However, before concluding, it would be wrong to leave the impression that the whole of the first world war was as operationally unsuccessful as the battle of the Somme. In March 1918, the British Army, with their “backs to the wall”, withstood the Kaiser’s offensive and eventually launched a highly successful counter-attack using the principle of combined arms—tanks, artillery, infantry and, to some extent, nascent air power, all working in unison—to effectively break the back of the German army in the field by the autumn and force the eventual German surrender in November. The great difference was that by mid-1918, British generals had learnt through brutal experience how to combine the various weapons of war for maximum offensive effect to achieve operational and, ultimately, strategic success, rather than being over-reliant on one arm—artillery—to the great detriment of another: the humble infantry. That was, literally, the fatal error of the Somme.
Those who fought at the Somme, as elsewhere in world war one, laid down their lives for a greater cause: for the many freedoms we now enjoy. They, indeed, gave their today for our tomorrow, and we in this House and across the nation should never take their supreme sacrifice for granted, nor will we. Lest we forget.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). He routinely reminds us of the absence of certain Members of Parliament in such debates. It reminds me that it is serious parties and a serious Parliament that present a united point of view on matters such as this, and it is not Governments alone that fix or address our security, but Parliaments. We must come together in our resolve to ensure that we pay these matters respect when they are brought to the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing this very important debate at a very important time, and to all Members for their worthy contributions. The hon. Member for South West Devon captured not only the colossal scale of the loss but the extent to which it covered her constituency and all our constituencies, right here to the doors of Parliament. I am very grateful for her work for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I reflected that perhaps the Devonshires did not just hold ground; they also held her heart.
As I prepared for this speech, I was struck by the extent to which every community was touched by this battle, which was a seminal battle in the first world war but also a seminal moment in our nation’s psyche. As I stood in front of the Cenotaph yesterday, it felt as though the whole nation had joined us in silence, reflecting and remembering. That, for me, is what remembrance is about: unity. They came from every nation in our Union, every village and town in every region, forming something like 50 divisions. Every soldier fought, many giving their lives.
I was incredibly touched by the stories of the Pals. In Leyton, 41 players, staff and supporters from my beloved Leyton Orient—known then as Clapton Orient—led by the club captain Fred “Spider” Parker were enlisted as the 17th (Service) Battalion. Many of them never came home, including three sons of Leyton: Richard McFadden, William Jonas and George Scott. It was incredibly powerful to create a bridge and a link with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who spoke about the 16th (Service) Battalion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), who spoke lovingly about the Lonsdale Pals, reminding us of the proximity of our people who gave so valiantly in this campaign.
But Britain did not fight alone. We are the great convener. We are the home of democracy, and at moments like this, our friends came to our aid. Some tens of thousands of Commonwealth soldiers are buried in military and civilian cemeteries. In Thiepval, the Memorial to the Missing of the Somme bears the names of 72,000 British and South African men who died at the Somme and have no grave. It was incredibly powerful when I heard those stories in the speeches by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), and my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal). They spoke about the contributions of all those nations, and reminded us that courage has no religion and sacrifice has no colour. The Commonwealth Air Forces memorial is a poignant reminder of that sacrifice, because those who came to fight alongside us from the Commonwealth, from places like Africa, from where I came, were Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and many others, looking after our birthplace, looking over Runnymede. I suggest that all hon. Members go there and take some of that in.
Over the past couple of days I have had the honour and privilege to host my opposite number from Australia, the hon. Matt Keogh. Yesterday I presented him with a poppy forged from barbed wire recovered from the battlefield of the Somme, as a sign of the shared sacrifice that our two countries made and which the Liberal Democrat leader—[Interruption.] Correction; perhaps in the future—the hon. Member for Esher and Walton spoke so powerfully about. Around 6,800 of the Australian Imperial Force were killed at the Somme, and 18,000 more were injured. It was a chance for me to reciprocate the Australian Government hosting me, as part of my visit with the House of Commons Defence Committee, and to reflect on our national gratitude for Australia’s contribution.
The Australian Government clean the tomb of the unknown Australian soldier every year. This year, I was inspired to take a moment to visit our own Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, and to remind ourselves that every one of those soldiers, sailors, aviators and nurses at the Somme, and elsewhere, gave everything to every one of us. That is why I went alone, and why my message to them reflected the individual nature of those soldiers’ sacrifices. From every one of us, to every one of you, lest we forget.
The loss extended into this place. Some 264 Members enlisted during the first world war. Many came home injured and traumatised, and 43 did not return at all. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) raised one of the bigger questions: what is war for? He gave us a powerful reminder that this was a war of liberation. It was a point that we must remember when we speak of the sacrifices that those in Ukraine are making today for us all across Europe. There was a powerful reminder from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) about the importance of the linkages that we created after the war between our communities and our European friends. Those linkages are things we should covet and seek to rebuild.
There was an incredibly powerful intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who spoke in essence about the character and nature of war. It is easy for us to get suckered in to technology and to concern ourselves with how killing happens at such scale. We must remember, as he said, the enduring horribleness of fighting between peoples to remind ourselves that we must never allow it to happen again.
Mr Francois
As the Minister will know, many of those who died in the Somme were buried close to where they fell, so there is a whole line of cemeteries across the Somme battlefield that mark out the very limited extent of the allied advance. Across the Dispatch Boxes, will he join me in together paying tribute to the amazing work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which tends those graves to our fallen so respectfully and brilliantly?
Mr Bailey
I thank the shadow Minister for those powerful words. I agree with him, which is why I took the time to go to the grave of the Unknown Warrior. I will ensure that any Member of the House who wishes to do the same is able to do so, and I urge all hon. Members to take up that invitation.
The local and personal nature of the battalions who served in the first world war was reflected in a powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), who spoke about loyalty and reminded us that freedom has a cost. My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) spoke about the importance of preserving those links and reminding ourselves what war is for.
Before I finish and the hon. Member for South West Devon sums up the debate, I want to return to something she said about the amount of time that has elapsed since the battle of the Somme. Given that the battle was 110 years ago, it is easy for us to think that the time for remembrance has passed. However, as veterans will know, remembrance is part of the continuum of service. This year we remember the 20th anniversary of the loss of XV230 and the 14-person crew from 120 Squadron, the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment. We remember their loss and we will never forget their sacrifice.
In closing, the legacy of the battle of the Somme unites us in remembrance, no matter where we come from and no matter our religion, race or politics. The sacrifice of men and women—including the Canary Girls in Woolwich and Carlisle, who bonded over the colour that stained their hands—is the same, from the Somme to Afghanistan, from Gallipoli to XV230. We remember their loss and we will never forget their sacrifice.
Rebecca Smith
I am incredibly grateful to all those who have contributed today and to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for helping to prepare for the debate. We have heard many individual names and about people of different nationalities and religions. We have heard about the role of women, the pals battalions, sports teams, miners and medics, and we have heard examples of immense bravery. Reflections about the human cost of war have brought emotion across the Chamber as we have shared the sheer scale of the losses at the battle of the Somme and allowed it to sink in again.
One hundred and ten years ago, the young men who fought on the Somme would have had no idea that Members of Parliament would still be speaking their names in this Chamber more than a century later. Perhaps that is exactly what remembrance requires of us. The most meaningful thing that we can do as we approach 18 November, the 110th anniversary, is simply to tell their stories again, because remembrance cannot be passive; it has to be renewed by every generation. Those who fought on the Somme entrusted their memory first to their families, then to the memorials and cemeteries that were built in their names, and ultimately to us and all those whom we represent. We will remember them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme.
Nolan Principles
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Susan Murray, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Nolan principles.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the co-sponsors for bringing this important debate to the House. It is a pleasure to follow the debate on the battle of the Somme led by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). It reminds us of the sacrifices made by so many so that we can enjoy our way of life today, which we cannot take for granted, and which the Nolan principles help us to protect.
Recent polling has shown that just 9% of people trust politicians to put the interests of the nation above the interests of their own party, and recent British Election Study research found that around three quarters of people had low or no trust in MPs. Frankly, I am horrified that people might look at me in that way. For years, I operated in the community as a volunteer and activist, and later as a local councillor, and I was viewed in my community as a trustworthy source of support. Now I am proud to serve that community as the Member of Parliament. I know that most of my colleagues in this place and across public service are in it for the right reasons—to serve their constituents and communities.
More than 30 years ago, Lord Nolan set out seven simple principles that must be followed by people in public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The principles represent not just rules for us to follow, but an agreement and understanding between the public and those they trust to serve, represent and protect them.
We have all read about the headline-grabbing failures—partygate, when the rules our constituents followed were broken in Downing Street, or the questions over Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador in Washington—but sometimes we do not know about the devastating consequences for our constituents when these principles are not followed. We do not always know how the pernicious creep of the ignoring and bending of the rules has reached into public bodies that people deal with every day: councils, the police and our schools.
In my Mid Dunbartonshire constituency and across Scotland, schools operate a software system called SEEMiS. Most hon. Members will not have heard of SEEMiS, but it is the system used by Scottish schools to keep pupil records—the formal records of a child’s education journey. Importantly, the records include notes on bullying incidents. Following a bullying incident in a school, a constituent told me about the difficulties they faced in trying to gain access to the data in their child’s record on SEEMiS. This resulted in a devastating breach of trust. After the incident badly affected the education journey of their child, they asked to access their child’s records. East Dunbartonshire council told them that the incident involving their child that they wished to view had been properly logged at the time, and that records could not be changed afterwards, but that was not the truth. My constituent was forced to go to court to access their child’s records, and only after a court ruling did the council hand them over.
This lack of transparency is deeply worrying, and the willingness of the council to spend taxpayers’ money on a court case, which it lost, shows little objectivity and poor accountability. To add to my constituent’s ordeal, they found not only that the notes were inaccurate, but that they had been altered. They did not find that out because they were told or because it was recorded in the notes; they had to access stored metadata—information that is not readily available and that requires a high level of technical expertise to access. When my constituent complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, now the Information Commission, they were told that the actions of the school and the council did
“not meet with the obligation to be transparent”.
The ICO told the council that it should change the system so that notes cannot be backdated. The council has said that it has taken action, which I welcome, but the fact is that this happened and has had serious negative consequences for the child involved.
In focusing on the Nolan principles, I have necessarily concentrated on the accountability failures, rather than the full extent of what happened, as well as on how the case was handled by the council and the damage that that handling caused the young person. In another case, a child was the victim of a serious and very distressing incident caused by a fellow pupil. My constituent requested that safeguarding arrangements be put in place to protect their child, only for those arrangements to be removed without either my constituent or their child being consulted or informed. My constituent has spent years trying to establish who made those decisions, what assessments were carried out and what evidence justified them, but to no avail. She has often been told that past unanswered issues cannot be dealt with or has been given no answer at all. The impact on my constituent’s child and family has been enormous. This is not happening in isolation. This local authority, like others, has been subject to multiple findings that have identified failures and recurring concerns.
The Nolan principles speak of accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. That should mean answering reasonable questions honestly, explaining decisions and accepting responsibility when things go wrong. No parent should have to go to court to find out what has been written about their child. More than that, no parent should have to question whether the information they have been given is truthful. Openness, accountability and honesty should not be things that people have to fight for; they should be the foundations of our institutions. They need to be strengthened in our public bodies, and those in leadership roles should understand their responsibility. That is what it means for the Nolan principles to be at the core of public life. In these cases, they were not.
The SEEMiS case is of particular importance. It relates to the Nolan principles at every level. The council is responsible for SEEMiS software and decides how schools use it. The Scottish Government are responsible for the system that Scottish children are educated in, and Westminster is responsible for the data protection laws that govern the records. The Nolan principles can sound abstract, but these cases show why they matter, just as the lives of young people matter. When the principles were not followed, young people were let down and the community’s trust in our institutions was damaged.
Rarely do I speak about trust in politicians without mentioning the failures of the Scottish National party. As we all know, its record is far from clean. In June, the former chief executive of the SNP was jailed for embezzling more than £400,000 from his own party. A party let down on that scale should have welcomed scrutiny and made sure it could never happen again. That would help to rebuild trust and faith in politics. Instead, when MPs proposed that the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which I sit, look at the matter, the SNP’s Westminster leader, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), called it
“an unprecedented abuse of the House of Commons Committee system”.
What does that tell the people of Scotland about the openness, honesty and leadership of those who govern them?
I have three asks of the Government. First, every public body that holds records on people should be expected to keep a full and transparent trail of what is recorded and what was changed in those records, and when. There must be meaningful accountability when they fail to do so. Secondly, political parties should be held to the standard we expect of public bodies. Peter Murrell took more than £400,000 from his own party over 12 years, using his position to get around the party’s checks. If that can happen, the checks on how parties handle their money are not strong enough. Will the Government give the Electoral Commission stronger powers and, more importantly, the ability to issue higher fines to ensure that when questions arise, parties investigate themselves properly?
Finally, the standards system here at Westminster should set an example for every other institution to follow. The Government have strengthened the powers of the independent adviser, which is a good first step, but I would like to see the role put on a statutory basis with the power to open investigations, decide whether the ministerial code has been broken and publish what it finds. If we want to restore faith not just in politics, but in wider public life, the public need to be able to see that public bodies, MPs and political parties are held to account when they break the public’s trust.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With a five-minute time limit, I call Sam Rushworth.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is poignant that this debate follows a debate on the battle of the Somme. I was reflecting yesterday on remembrance and thinking about the sacrifice of my grandfather in the second world war and our great-grandfathers in the first world war, and I reflected on what they might think about politics today. I think they may be quite disappointed in the democracy that we have built, particularly in the coarsening of public discourse, the amount of times that people engage with others as their enemies, rather than their opponents, and some of the falling standards in public life.
Chris Vince
I was going to make this point to the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), but she had finished her speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) talks about the behaviour of Members of Parliament, which is really important. I visit schools quite regularly in my constituency and talk about the debates that we have in this place, and it is really important that when the debates end, we treat each other with respect and courtesy; I think the majority of Members do that in this place. Does he agree that it is disappointing when some Members of this House do not treat other Members with the same respect?
Dr Rushworth
I agree 100%.
There is a responsibility on all of us, frankly, to do better. Why? The point has already been made very well, but there is a decline in trust in politicians. I naively thought when I was elected to this place that if I just told the truth all the time, worked incredibly hard and acted with integrity, it would shine through, but it does not. I have many constituents who do not trust me and think that I am a liar, not because of anything tangible that I have done, but because they think the whole political class is not to be trusted and that the moment somebody becomes a politician, they fall into that class. That is why it is so important that we do more to uphold and strengthen standards in public life.
It is important that we address a couple of areas in particular. One is around stronger safeguards that give our constituents confidence that when we choose to put ourselves forward and become elected to this place, we genuinely have their interests at heart and are not using this place to enrich ourselves. For example, we have to get rid of second jobs. I am not talking about medics maintaining their medical licences; I am talking about people earning vast sums of money while not representing their constituents in this place. I have found that this job is equivalent to two full-time jobs. It is impossible to be a proper Member of Parliament and to do our job properly while constantly being away earning huge sums of money elsewhere. It simply cannot be done, and we need to legislate strongly against that. We also need to do more to enable our constituents to see the difference. Maybe there needs to be greater transparency. I have often wondered if we should clock in and out of the Chamber and report how many surgeries we all hold, and so on, so that people can make fair comparisons and understand who is doing the work and who is not doing the work.
Another point we need to address is our debating. Maybe we need to review “Erskine May” and what constitutes parliamentary language. I have been really disappointed at times since I was elected by the things that are deemed acceptable. For example, I thought it was disgusting when the Leader of the Opposition described Members on the Government Benches as “paedo defenders”, and we all know that we got abuse because of that. The things said in this Chamber get repeated to us by our constituents. Members on the Government Benches who are themselves survivors of child sexual abuse had that label attached to them, and it was deeply distressing to them. Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition should have done better, but that was not called out by Mr Speaker because it is apparently deemed to be parliamentary language. We need to address that.
We also need to look beyond this place. There are examples—one has been given already—of where the public simply do not have the transparency that they would expect at lower levels of government and in public bodies. I was very disappointed to see that the leadership of Durham county council changed the rules on hearing standards complaints, so that a very small committee, on which Reform always has a majority, hears an increasing number of serious complaints. Some former Reform councillors who resigned and sit as independents have described the leadership as shambolic.
The Nolan principles predominantly deal with integrity, but do we need to consider principles that address the challenges of 2026? Is it acceptable for people in public life to express racist opinions under the guise of free speech? Before Reform took control of Durham county council, I supplied it and the media with a full dossier of disgusting Facebook posts from accounts that claimed to be their candidates’ accounts and who the administrators of those accounts were. One of those people went on to become a Reform councillor, which was entirely unacceptable.
Finally—as I raised with the Leader of the House today—as we look increasingly to devolve power, there needs to be stronger accountability for regional mayors and local government, right down to parish council level. There need to be legal safeguards in place to provide protection. At the moment, town and parish councillors do not have to declare interests and are not subject to the same scrutiny as us, yet planning decisions are often made by them. I think we can do better on this issue in a number of areas.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for missing her opening remarks. I was rushing to the Chamber from another meeting.
I very much welcome a debate about the Nolan principles. To start with a point that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) made at the beginning of his speech, it is indeed surprising and perplexing that we would regard nearly 100% of the colleagues in this Chamber—from whichever party—as careful, diligent and morally upstanding people. There is a tiny minority who we perhaps do not trust, but basically, although we might not be able to remember the seven principles of public life by heart, that is the way we want to live our lives. That is the example we want to demonstrate in the work we do, yet the more paraphernalia created around the enforcement of standards in the House of Commons, the worse the reputation of politicians seems to become. I think that is because we think of ourselves as legislators, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland fell into that trap: “We need more rules about this. We need more rules about that. We need rules to address this.”
I spent the previous Parliament on the Standards Committee, and I participated in producing the report that came out in May 2022. That report was a complete revision of the House of Commons code of conduct, and was trying to start a different conversation. One witness, who was a Chief Whip of a major political party, told us in evidence, “The seven principles are quite simple, and if you do not understand them, you should not be in public life.” On the face of it, they are very simple, but is navigating conflicts of interest as a Member of Parliament simple? We all have them; whether we are paid as an outside director or sponsored by a trade union, everybody has conflicts of interest. What about the conflicts of interest—even if they are not necessarily declarable—between our parties’ programmes and the interests of our constituents? We all have to deal with conflicts of interest.
The image we were given in one piece of evidence from the Westminster Abbey Institute was that we are trying to navigate our way across a stormy sea, with lots of conflicting pressures and priorities, and it is not always easy to decide what to do in a given set of circumstances. If any hon. Member present thinks it has been easy, they probably do not realise what they have stumbled into. Yes, we want transparency, and yes, there need to be rules, but the rules should not be the culture. If you go into the Tea Room and talk about the House of Commons code of conduct, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you find—like everyone else—that people discuss how to stay clear of the rules. That is what the conversation appears to be about; it does not tend to be about how to deal sincerely and honestly with conflicts.
The problem with the way in which the House of Commons has set up the adjudication of the code is that it tends to be a very legalistic process. Anyone who has been under the cosh of an investigation by the Commissioner for Standards finds first that they have got nobody to talk to. I have recommended that we should split the role of the commissioner, with somebody to advise and counsel Members of Parliament about conflicts of interest and the code, and somebody—preferably a former High Court judge—to adjudicate.
Of course, I have no criticism to make of the present commissioner, but we could upgrade the juridical process of adjudicating the code as we have done for appeals, which are now presided over by a High Court judge and a panel in a much more strictly judicial process. The advantage of that is a High Court judge is used to adjudicating: judging evidence and facts and coming to a conclusion.
Dr Rushworth
I genuinely think that the hon. Gentleman’s is a voice worth listening to on this. Does he not feel that the growth in rules has been a response to the scandals we have had rather than the producer of them? Is he arguing for less regulation or that we have just got the wrong rules and system in place?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am not arguing for abolition of the code or anything like that. I am arguing for a system that recognises that conflicts of interest inevitably arise and have to be handled. The system should create a supportive environment for Members of this House to discuss and explore the dilemmas they are confronted with, openly and frankly and without fear. That does not exist at the moment.
I also think that the margin of appreciation in interpreting the rules should be much more forgiving. The present commissioner has made it clear that that is not his method, and indeed the House of Commons resolutions do not steer him in that direction. We might think that the guidance accompanying the rules was just guidance, but the official advice from the House Service is that, because it has been approved by the House, along with the code of conduct rules, it has equal force as the law of Parliament. I do not think that is what Parliament really understood when it voted the guidance through, or each time it does so. I would like to see a more flexible and forgiving system: one where there is a more open conversation about the dilemmas we face.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing the debate. Trust in politics is one of the big challenges of our time. It has never been particularly high, but at the moment, Britain’s trust in politics is among the lowest in western Europe. There are obviously many theories as to why that might be, but, from my experience before coming to this place of working on open government in over 70 countries, I recognise that there are ways in which we could reverse the trend. That is part of what this debate is about. My strong belief is that it is about a combination of transparency and accountability plus delivery on the issues that our constituents care about. Those two things do not need to be in tension, although some try to argue that; they can be complementary.
The big opportunity coming up for the Government is the White Paper on rewiring the state. I am personally very excited about that, because of the term “taking on unaccountable government”. I hope that there is space in that vision to articulate why open government, transparency and opportunities for public participation lead to better decisions and better government. It is about ensuring that citizens have a voice, and that the state is accountable for decisions and failures are learned from and not covered up.
I was therefore really glad that the Prime Minister committed to working with me on justice for Grenfell—a tragedy that would not have happened had the Nolan principles been followed by the leadership of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I agree with the chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) that more needs to be done on local government. That is an important commitment in the Government’s anti-corruption plan.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror and disgust at what the Moore-Bick inquiry has uncovered about the conduct of quite a number of bodies and people that led to the Grenfell tragedy. It was a system failure, and the question of who takes responsibility for system failures is much more important. The problem with just applying rules is that they do not necessarily address system failures, because they are about culture, attitude and behaviour. That is what we need to address and demonstrate leadership on, as we are figures in public life.
Joe Powell
I agree that culture is a huge part of this. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is belatedly undergoing what it calls a culture review, but I fear that it may fall into the category of reviews that may not necessarily lead to the change we want, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. Let us see what happens; I want to keep an open mind.
I also support the idea of a national oversight mechanism —I know the Cabinet Office is doing work on this. If we are going to spend time, energy and resources on inquests and inquiries, it is important that the recommendations are tracked and monitored; otherwise, it feels to me that we may defeat the point. Of course, the Hillsborough law—the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which I hope will become an Act very soon—may be a big step forward on the duty of candour.
I want to cover two areas. First, there is a huge amount to welcome in the Representation of the People Bill, particularly on foreign money in politics and the Rycroft recommendations, and we will shortly get that Bill back from the other place. There were so many good suggestions that could not find their way into the Bill, which is why the Government were right to set up a task and finish group. I hope the ideas that come through that group will see the light of day, potentially in future legislation. I really welcome the Bill, but I do not want to lose the ideas that we could not get through this time. I really hope that when the Electoral Commission looks at spending caps during the regulated period, it will take an expansive view and think about whether we need to have wider ones, given the nature of modern campaigning, which is essentially permanent.
The second main area that I want to cover is lobbying reform. The July report from the Ethics and Integrity Commission was a really thorough and good piece of work that contained lots of recommendations about lobbying. At the moment, the public record captures only 4% of lobbyists, because it is restricted to consultant lobbyists, and information is captured in disparate databases across Government, making it hard to track and make useful. We know from Greensill and the covid contracts that modern lobbying happens in lots of different ways, not just through formal meetings.
This is not about policing who the Government meet, because they should be meeting businesses, stakeholders and so on. It is about having the right to know what voices are informing major decisions, so that the public can make a judgment on whether the requirement to consult widely has been met. An initial step would be to clean up the number of different lobbying databases that we have, and to make them easier to understand and view. The report calls for legislation, and I asked at Cabinet Office orals a few weeks ago whether the Government were open to legislation. The Minister confirmed that they were, so I hope that is something we will see.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, it has too often taken a crisis to create the urgency to act on matters of ethics and integrity in politics. We can all name them: Greensill, the previous ambassador to the United States, the covid contracts, Owen Paterson and, of course, the multiple ongoing investigations by different bodies into Reform UK’s funding and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have informed him that I would say this. We now have an opportunity to create a reset moment for standards in public life, and the rewiring the state White Paper is a great opportunity to do so.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend refers to the wider rewiring of the state. As we move towards further devolution, does he agree that our local councillors need to be much more accountable? At the moment, even when they are sanctioned, all they are asked to do is apologise. That gets nowhere, because they do not bother to do so.
Joe Powell
I completely agree. I am a huge supporter of devolution, but it is important that the Government’s anti-corruption plan calls for a local audit office to look at finance and at codes of conduct for local councillors and senior officers. Of course, local government is required to follow the Nolan principles, but I am not sure that we have all the systems in place to track and monitor that, so I agree with my hon. Friend.
The first opportunity is to finish the job on the Representation of the People Bill and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, and the second is the White Paper on rewiring the state. My third and final suggestion is to have a “clean up Westminster” Bill in the next Session. It would bring together all the different elements on which we know action is needed, such as lobbying and second jobs, finishing the job on money in politics and sending a clear message to the public that open and accountable politics is central to this Government’s mission of rewiring the state in a way that delivers growth, opportunity and hope across the country.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the Nolan principles; I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing it.
As chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, let me say that it is on all of us to speak truth to power in a spirit of constructive criticism, regardless of which party is in power. I wish to focus my remarks on two topics where, collectively, it is my view that we are falling short of the Nolan principles: lobbying reform, which is long overdue, and MPs’ outside employment.
Let me say from the outset that lobbying is a vital part of public discourse in driving workable policy solutions. It ensures that differing viewpoints are heard by the Government before decisions are made, but we need to know who is being lobbied by whom so that politicians, the public and the media can accurately scrutinise the machinery of government. Regrettably, that is not the case in the United Kingdom in 2026.
In July, the Ethics and Integrity Commission published its review “Lobbying, Business Appointment Rules and Disclosure: Access to Government Decision Making”, which details 37 recommendations to modernise the regime. Doug Chalmers, the EIC’s chair, wrote in that report that the lobbying system
“fails to deliver the required level of transparency and, in doing so, falls short of meeting the Nolan Principles.”
Over the years, review after review and scandal after scandal have shown that the current system is broken. Only about 4% of all lobbying activity is required to be declared on the register of consultant lobbyists. That means that 96 out of 100 lobbying interactions simply fall outside the disclosure requirement, including in-house lobbyists, lobbyists with a turnover of below £90,000, non-VAT registered foreign businesses, the activities of special advisers, and informal comms such as WhatsApp.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
People can mostly see who lobbies me because I often cannot resist putting their pictures on my Facebook page when I meet them. However, I do have to correct my hon. Friend. He is wrong to say that lobbying is not taken seriously in the UK, because in Scotland there is a register of lobbyists, so there are things we can learn even from inside the UK. What is in place in Scotland is not perfect, but does he agree that there is something we can learn from?
Phil Brickell
I am always willing to learn from comparative analysis of what works elsewhere, including in other jurisdictions across the United Kingdom.
The Government have it in their power to bring about a culture shift, and the time to do so is now. Not all of the EIC’s recommendations require primary legislation. There is recommendation 8, which is that the Government simply refuse to meet any organisation seeking to lobby them unless that organisation is on the lobbying register. Recommendation 10 on having one digital repository for transparency releases is a simple fix. How about recommendation 13, which is that transparency releases include informal communication channels, including the likes of WhatsApp?
If we are to address the deficiencies in our system, I urge the Government to find time to overhaul the register of consultant lobbyists so that we have a truly representative register that closes the loopholes I have mentioned, that empowers the regulator to levy significant fines for systemic offences of the registration requirement, that is properly resourced, and that documents interactions between the Government and organisations in sufficient detail that it serves as more than a mere box-ticking exercise.
Let me turn to MPs’ outside employment, colloquially known as second jobs. This Government pledged in the 2024 manifesto that they would
“task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents and the country.”
In November 2024, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) tasked the Committee on Standards to look at how
“to conduct further work into how changes to the rules on outside interests and employment might be implemented”.
The Standards Committee opened its inquiry on 8 January 2025 and took oral evidence in public through to July 2025, yet—more than a year later—no report has been published, and no recommendations have been forthcoming, and no action has been taken in Government due to this delay. Despite my writing to the Standards Committee requesting an update, I have yet to receive a substantive response.
Having advised—for the good part of more than a decade, in my old job before being elected to this place —on conflicts of interest, and on outside employment and related matters, I have been incredibly patient and so have other Members of this House. The Standards Committee has a broad remit and does good work, but after almost 24 months of waiting for a report, after my mentioning this matter previously in the House and after writing to the Standards Committee, there seems to have been no progress. I said in Westminster Hall more than four months ago that this House is moving at a glacial speed. My fear is that the glaciers will have melted by the time the report is published. The lack of progress is simply not good enough.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
May I suggest that the questions about lobbying and Members’ outside interests might have turned out to be a little bit more complicated than the Labour manifesto considered them to be? May I also suggest that the hon. Gentleman approaches the Chair of the Standards Committee? The Chair is a Member of Parliament, so he is not difficult to find. We are in the same House—there are only 650 of us. May I suggest he does that, rather than getting on his high horse and criticising the Committee because he does not know what it is doing?
Phil Brickell
As the hon. Gentleman may have heard, I have approached the Chair of the Standards Committee and I have followed the proceedings that the Standards Committee has been undertaking over the past two years. I have not named any Member in this Chamber. I have approached the Chair and I have had correspondence, so I think the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) will know that I have been following these matters very closely, suffice it to say. As I said, I worked on conflicts of interest in the private sector for more than a decade, so I have sufficient expertise to be able to talk at length about this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, but I will be starting Front-Bench speeches at 4.30 pm and we do have another Member who wants to speak.
Phil Brickell
I do not think it is complicated; I think it is pretty simple, and the Government have said repeatedly that the focus should be on delivering for constituents.
In summary, will the Minister do what she can to ensure that the report is expedited? Across the standards landscape, it pains me to see progress moving at far too slow a pace. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has yet to meet the EIC, so my final ask is: might the Minister venture to ensure that such a meeting takes place as soon as possible?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
On a four-minute time limit, I call Adam Thompson.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I will be as brief as possible. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing the debate forward—we are all very grateful.
Despite what the media might have us think sometimes, I think people in my constituency are not actually that interested in the to-ing and fro-ing of us here in Westminster. Instead, what they want to see is honesty and accountability in their politicians and their Government. They want some breathing space from the pressures of the cost of the living crisis, and they expect that those elected to serve them are focused on the issues that matter to them most. When I speak to people across Erewash, they rarely ask about the sparring that has happened that week in Prime Minister’s questions. What they actually want to ask me about is whether they can get a GP appointment, if their train will turn up on time, or how they will make ends meet at the end of the month.
People need to know that politics is working for them. When confidence in politics falls, so does our ability to tackle the challenges facing the country and improve people’s lives. That is why the Nolan principles matter. They are about restoring trust at a time when many people have lost faith that politics can deliver for them. Rebuilding that confidence requires those in public life to uphold the highest standards of honesty, integrity and accountability. The Nolan principles are not about party politics; they are the core of good public service, and they help to ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest. They set out the standards that British people have a right to expect from those who are elected to serve them.
In the era of social media, where misinformation can spread quickly and public confidence is easily eroded, standards of conduct are more important than ever. People hear a lot about politics, but they do not always see reasons to trust it. The rise of artificial intelligence of course has merit. However, it has created room for the rapid spread of disordered information and misinformation. With political deepfakes—often from accounts registered from abroad—seamlessly depicting Members of this House doing or saying things they have not done, it is unsurprising that people feel distrust towards politicians.
I remember the incident last year involving the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—I have notified him that I would be mentioning him today. A deepfake video was created in which the fake version of him announced his defection from the Conservative party to Reform, which, of course, the real hon. Member had not done. It was terrifying for all of us here, because of how close to reality the video was, despite it being totally fabricated. Fake news spreads six times faster than truthful content online, and 70% of people struggle to distinguish between real and fake news. Two thirds of Brits now see misinformation as the leading threat to our democracy, and with trust in politicians at an all-time low, that should concern us all. That is why it is essential that all politicians uphold the principles of openness, integrity and honesty. Where there is uncertainty in the information space, people should be able to look to public servants for clarity and not be met with falsehoods or ambiguity.
Every story of poor conduct makes it a little harder for people to believe that politics is working for them. Trust is hard to build, and easy to lose. Once it is lost, regaining it takes time. And it has been lost. Just four years ago, Liz Truss sent the currency crashing and interest rates soaring; six years ago, Boris Johnson broke his own lockdown rules to host parties in Downing Street; and this year, Reform UK has been investigated by the National Crime Agency for alleged dodgy dealings.
This morning on the Floor of the House I raised an incident with Derbyshire county council, which had placed engagement sanctions on our brilliant local democracy reporter, Eddie Bisknell. Although I understand that those sanctions are now lifted, I strongly agree with the Leader of the House’s comment that it sounded like they were running scared from basic scrutiny.
Public trust has been seriously undermined. It is up to us, as Members of Parliament and public servants, to adhere to the highest standard of professional and personal conduct. If we want the public to regain faith in politics and us, selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness and honesty are the life foundations by which we must abide. Public trust should never be taken for granted; it must be earned and maintained. That is why the Nolan principles remain as important today as they have ever been.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. It is strange to become a Member of Parliament for the first time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low. The feeling of antipathy towards MPs from much of the public bears no relation at all to most of the people I have met in this place. Colleagues across the House work extremely hard for their constituents in surgeries, casework, meetings and debates, and in the long quiet hours that nobody sees.
As with most things in life, however, there are always a few who ruin it for everyone else, those people who do not care quite so much for the niceties or traditions. I believe that we must ensure that we have the rules and regulations in place to hold those people to account and uphold the values of public service if we are to restore faith and trust in politics. I heard the view of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that we need a system that supports Members—although I am not sure that we entirely agree on the need for a flexible system to get around the conflicts of interest that some of us face.
If politics is not clean, if politicians are not honest and accountable, and if people cannot trust those whom they send to represent them, then frankly what is the point?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
In my professional experience as a vet, if I broke the rules and lied about it, I would get struck off. There does not seem to be an equivalent standard for politicians. Surely politicians should be held to account the same as anyone in a regulated profession, whether that is medics, teachers or anyone else who must be registered and maintain a certain standard of public behaviour.
Caroline Voaden
My hon. Friend makes the good point that most other professions are regulated to a much higher degree than we are in this place. In 1995, Lord Nolan set out seven principles for public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. They are not complicated. They are what any member of the public would expect from us, and they are written into the ministerial code, the MPs code of conduct and the civil service code. However, time and again in recent years those principles have been brushed aside.
Take partygate, which has been mentioned by many Members: while families were separated from dying relatives and people stood alone at funerals—my family included, that very week—those writing the rules were holding parties in Downing Street. That was a disgraceful failure of selflessness, and above all, a failure of leadership.
Not long ago, the leader of Reform UK received a gift of £5 million from a wealthy donor but did not declare it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), not in his place, claimed that it was for his security and that no rules were broken—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Lady will be very aware of the rules of this House and of this debate. It is not in order to criticise the conduct of another hon. Member, except on a substantive motion.
Caroline Voaden
I believed that I was merely mentioning something that we all know had happened, but whatever the outcome—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure the hon. Lady understands full well the parameters of this debate and the rules of this House.
Caroline Voaden
Forgive me.
Whatever the outcome of that case, there will be many people outside this place who have questions about £5 million passing quietly to a politician. Integrity means not placing ourselves under obligation to those who might seek to influence us. The public are entitled to ask what would be expected in return for a sum of money on that scale, and whether it is merely a gift.
Let us take the situation of the former ambassador to the United States of America—a man with a long history of controversy.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is still alluding to the case you told her she could not discuss. I urge you to call her to order. She said she would obey the rules.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure that the hon. Lady can remember my previous two rulings on this. I am sure that she understands that it is imperative that we all obey the rules in this House.
Caroline Voaden
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is little wonder that trust is where it is. People have rightly lost faith in a system that is meant to work for them. The issue is that our system depends almost entirely on voluntary compliance. It assumes that people who break the rules will admit it, resign and make things right, but anyone who has followed politics in recent years knows that that does not always happen. Rules built on good faith give no protection against those who act in bad faith. People are not asking for perfection; they are asking for accountability. They want to know that when someone in public life crosses a line, there will be consequences.
That is why the Liberal Democrats have a clear plan to restore standards in public life. We would put the ministerial code into law. We have called for this repeatedly, and we will keep calling for it. A code that is only guidance can be ignored, but a code that is law must be followed.
We would make the independent adviser on ministerial standards truly independent. I applaud the Labour Government under Keir Starmer for giving the adviser the power to start their own investigations, but that does not go far enough. The Prime Minister can still raise concerns that stop an investigation in its tracks, the Prime Minister still decides what follows from its findings, and the Prime Minister alone still chooses who holds this post. That is still, in part, marking one’s own homework. We would go further, with no prime ministerial power to halt an investigation, the right for the adviser to decide whether there has been a breach and to publish their findings, and an appointment confirmed by Parliament, not made by the Prime Minister alone.
We would also reform the rules on outside work. Voters send us here to work for them, not to use Parliament as a launchpad for a career in media consultancy or the boardroom. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) about Members not having time when doing this job properly to be earning a fortune from media gigs or speaking arrangements. That reform should be led by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not by MPs deciding what they believe is good enough for themselves.
Then there is the elephant in the room: big money in politics. Where there are huge donations, there will always be suspicion of influence. The simplest way to remove the temptation and doubt is to remove the money. We would therefore cap individual donations whatever country a donor lives in, cap party spending all year round, and put donations, spending and political advertising on a real-time, searchable public database so that people can see exactly who is paying for politics. I support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) about lobbying and the transparency needed around it. If we take out the money, we take away the temptation and we give the public confidence that their voice counts for more than someone else’s bank balance.
These are only some of the changes we would make. Trust in politics can be rebuilt, but not through apologies or promises. It will be rebuilt when the rules are enforceable, when they apply to everyone equally, and when breaking them has consequences. That is what the public expects, and it is what this House should deliver.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for his very powerful contribution earlier in the debate.
As hon. Members have set out, the Nolan principles, introduced in 1995, are the foundation of trust in public service and the standard that all public servants should adhere to. From Members of Parliament, councillors, police and crime commissioners and mayors to civil servants and all those working in our health, education, police and court services, our mandates come from, and our salaries are paid by, the British taxpayer. No matter our party or different beliefs, we should always work in the interests of the nation first. That is what the principles of integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, honestly, openness and leadership ensure.
The previous Prime Minister arrived in office promising to restore service and respect to politics. He had a plan for change. It turned out he might have meant pocket change—£12,000 for free clothing, £2,000 for designer sunglasses and £20,000 of luxury accommodation from Lord Alli, who slipped hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Labour party, then Starmer gave him a free pass to wander around Downing Street. Add in his freebies to the Taylor Swift concerts—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the rules of the House are very clear that the conduct of another sitting Member of either House cannot be brought into question unless on a substantive motion.
Charlie Dewhirst
I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue, hopefully without catching your attention on such matters again.
It is worth saying that the former Prime Minister’s total expenses bill was more than any recent party leader and more than two-and-a-half times that of any MP in that period. That is certainly doing politics differently. If “passes for glasses” was not enough, the Government’s crony appointments got worse. The former Prime Minister disgracefully chose to appoint the twice-fired Peter Mandelson.
Dr Rushworth
I think it is important that we note that this is known about because everything was declared in the appropriate way through the system that we have in place. It is important that the public are able to distinguish between that and people taking gifts and concealing them from the public. I am not going to bring up previous scandals in the hon. Gentleman’s own party, but I think he knows that they exist.
Charlie Dewhirst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He is right that people in glass houses should not throw stones, and we do not need to end up in a tit-for-tat argument. He is right that those things were declared, but when it comes to the former ambassador, I think he will find that there were issues that were not declared, and they led to that downfall.
The former Prime Minister was, as he later admitted, well aware that Peter Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein even after his conviction for child sex offences. The choice to appoint him was bad enough, but it was the cover-up that ended up being worse perhaps than the crime. The former Prime Minister’s assurances to this House last year that full due process was followed, despite not maintaining a record of what it was doing, not recording the Prime Minister’s decisions and despite key Government WhatsApp messages and phones mysteriously—
Phil Brickell
Each and every one of us could talk through a litany of issues or scandals that have happened in years past. What I am keen to hear from the shadow Minister is his party’s policy proposals. The Starmer Government set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, got rid of the hereditary peers and brought into being more frequent disclosures for transparency. What is his party’s position on these matters?
Charlie Dewhirst
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is willing to stand up and try to defend the record around Peter Mandelson. I will come to the points he has raised in just a few moments.
As I was saying, the former Prime Minister made assurances to this House, despite Mandelson having failed his vetting. It clearly shows that the Nolan principles of integrity, objectivity, honesty and openness were no longer guiding the former Prime Minister. While this scandal ended up costing him his job, which some may argue is the Nolan principle of accountability in action, unfortunately he tried to cling on to power by throwing the jobs of his chief of staff, Cabinet Secretary, head of the Foreign Office and director of communications in No. 10 under the bus first, along with, it seems, the two remaining Nolan principles of selflessness and leadership.
Governments, like fish, rot from the head down. I will not go on to list all the examples that occurred under that leadership, but it is worth noting that a donor was appointed to the civil service and the Treasury—and I will not go into the detail of the infamous Le Chameau wellies. All of this happened under Keir Starmer’s leadership; I do not think that service and respect will be his legacy. We now have a new Prime Minister, who took over two years into this Government promising to do things differently. I had hoped to see the Nolan principles upheld better under his leadership, but I do have concerns, and I will return to those shortly.
Turning to the ways in which we can improve standards in public life, the Government’s newly introduced Ethics and Integrity Commission published its first annual letter to the Prime Minister last month. As the Government do not yet appear to have responded to that letter, I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House as to the Government’s view on a number of points.
On public service appointments, for a while there have been delays, with fewer than one in five public service recruitment campaigns completed in line with the three-month target. In its letter, the commission expresses concerns that there is risk that the lengthy delays could deter the best candidates from entering public service. It would be useful to know what the Government are doing to speed up the public appointments process. The letter also pointed out that the 2021 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, “Upholding Standards in Public Life”,
“called for all future Independent Advisers to be appointed through an enhanced version of the current process for significant public appointments”.
Again, the House awaits the Government’s opinion on that proposal.
The commission further recommended that the cross-governmental task and finish team, announced in September, looking at political finance and the way in which political parties play a vital role in our democracy, should
“engage with all major political parties so that decisions are not seen to be enacted in a partisan manner”,
to ensure that
“reforms have democratic legitimacy and are more likely to endure.”
This Government have singularly failed at such an approach in their consultation up to this point. I hope that that can be addressed.
The previous Conservative Government pledged to develop a single database to collate and publish departmental returns. The commission’s letter says that work should begin, but this Labour Government have scrapped it. The Conservatives also pledged to modernise the business appointment rules and take a risk-based approach to considering applications. Again, the commission recommends that; again, Labour has failed to deliver. Those proposals would help to promote the Nolan principles, and both were recommended to the Prime Minister by the Ethics and Integrity Commission in its annual letter.
Similarly, under the Procurement Act 2023, the previous Conservative Government introduced a form of accountability for when rules are broken in the public sector by introducing the Debarment Review Service to prevent businesses that are failing to meet standards in their current Government contracts from winning more contracts. Like many MPs, my inbox has been full of horror stories from local constituents and their families who have been unable to access their public sector pensions due to the poor service that Capita is providing. We are all aware that Capita has failed on public service pensions, and I give credit to the Minister for the work that she is doing on that. I wish her all the best, but will she provide a specific update on whether she is considering use of the debarment service for Capita?
My speech has focused heavily on the Government’s conduct, but integrity, objectivity and accountability are for all public servants across the British state. The whole country was shocked by the rape gang scandal. Though the last Prime Minister smeared those calling for a national inquiry as jumping on a far-right bandwagon, we have heard allegations that some in authority, including in the police, local councils and social services, covered up cases because of concerns about so-called community relations, thinking it was more important to do that than to protect vulnerable young children from heinous predators.
It took relentless campaigning and finally, just days before they looked set to lose the vote in Parliament, the Government U-turned and agreed to a national inquiry. Hardly a shining example of the Nolan principles. Meanwhile, in the Senedd, Labour and Plaid Cymru voted against commissioning an independent inquiry, and in Scotland, the SNP Government held out against an inquiry for even longer, finally announcing a date for one just a week ago.
There are some serious questions for the Government to answer on whether they still believe in the Nolan principles of public life. This Labour Government have seen resignations of their homelessness Minister, anti-corruption Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, and Transport Secretary, and all of that, we were told, because—
Charlie Dewhirst
Well, indeed. The hon. Gentleman mentions the former Prime Minister who was held to account and, as a result, lost his job. I think that is an example of the Nolan principles working.
The Government are under new management. Keir Starmer has been replaced by a new Prime Minister who promised to do things differently. “Differently” seems, in this case, to mean immediately appointing the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) to the role of First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, overseeing the debate on the very issue of standards in public life that we are having today. I do not believe that that is necessarily a great decision.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope we will get honesty, openness and accountability in response to the points that I have raised.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
I welcome this Backbench Business debate on the seven principles of public life or, as they are also known, the Nolan principles. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for opening the debate and raising some important examples from her constituency, which will have been heard by many people. As she will know, councillors can be referred to the Standards Commission for Scotland, and I hope that that will be done, but her speech has highlighted some important points, particularly in respect of transparency in Holyrood.
A year ago today, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) stood at this Dispatch Box to respond to an Adjournment debate on this very issue. Of course, the principles remain the same as they were on that evening—openness, accountability, objectivity, honesty, leadership, integrity and selflessness—but right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that we now stand on the brink of significant change on the matter of standards across the full spectrum of public life. The House knows that the principles are the foundation of standards in public life—something we all aspire to and that unites us across the Floor of this House and the other place. They sit behind the codes of conduct that are imposed for Ministers, special advisers, civil servants and others in public life, and the House knows all too well that public trust can be eroded when those standards are ignored and forgotten.
I will not seek to rehearse the arguments made by my hon. Friend last year, but I do wish to talk about the progress we have made in that time and address some of the points raised by hon. Members across the House. I am delighted to say that the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which sits at the heart of our standards system, has now been operational for 13 months. It has produced its first report into lobbying, the business appointment rules and disclosure in July. The chair of the commission has also reported to the Prime Minister as part of his annual responsibilities, setting out the state of the standards landscape across the public sector. The Prime Minister will respond to that shortly, and I am sure the House will be updated then.
The commission is currently looking into public sector codes of conduct in preparation for the commencement of the duty of candour as part of what is widely known as the Hillsborough law. We are immensely grateful to the commission for its work to drive up ethical standards in a busy year, and we look forward to seeing the progress over the years ahead.
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, or Hillsborough law, is approaching its remaining stages in the House of Lords, having already passed in the Commons back in July. The Government are working closely with Members in the other place who are rigorously examining that legislation as we head towards Report. The Ministry of Justice is leading on this legislation, but the Cabinet Office owns the duty of candour provisions, which are significant and form a considerable part of the Bill.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On the Hillsborough Bill, have the Government reconsidered their decision not to include more than first-tier contractors, and therefore not to include subcontractors or subcontractors of subcontractors? It is evident that we must have truth telling right the way down the system when so many services are contracted out—this has to change.
Sally Jameson
I take the hon. Member’s point and will come back to her on that. As I say, the Bill is mainly with the Ministry of Justice, but I will ensure that she gets a response. I will not take any more interventions, given the time we have left.
On the points raised by hon. Members on the independent adviser, the role advising the Prime Minister on the ministerial code has existed for 20 years. He is not an independent regulator, and the Government are not minded to change that in legislation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his work on anti-corruption as chair of the APPG. I know that he recently met my noble Friend Baroness Twycross to discuss a number of issues, some of which he has raised today.
The Government are working with Parliament to restore a politics of service consistent with the high standards expected of public office holders. The Modernisation Committee is exploring ways to drive up standards that also address matters of culture and procedure in the House of Commons, and the Government believe that the primary job of MPs is to represent their constituents. The Government fully support the inquiry being undertaken by the Committee on Standards to consider further changes to the rules on second jobs so that there are very limited exceptions, such as for MPs who need to do a minimum number of hours to maintain existing professional qualifications. I am sure that a number of the points raised in the House about this issue will have been heard.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) on mayoral accountability. As he knows, I am working closely on this as part of the rewiring the state delivery plan, and I hope to be able to update him and others on that very soon. I also take the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on how accountable government needs to be weaved throughout the rewiring the state programme across all tiers of Government as we progress through the devolution agenda.
The EIC published its report on 9 July, having reviewed the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials; transparency around lobbying, including the Government’s publication of monthly and quarterly integrity data; and the business appointment rules. I thank the commission and its chair, Douglas Chalmers, for its thorough and considered work on these important matters. The Government are carefully considering the report’s findings and will present their response to Parliament in the not-too-distant future.
Let me turn to some of the points raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst). For legal reasons, I cannot discuss debarment, but he will be aware of what the legislation says and the powers that the Government now have in relation to that. I share his concern and annoyance at the performance of Capita in the civil service pension scheme, and we continue to work night and day to ensure that that is resolved.
In relation to standards in local government, the Localism Act 2011 requires every local authority in England to adopt a code of conduct that conforms to the Nolan principles. The Government are committed to whole-system reform of the local government standards framework to make it stronger and more effective, and we will legislate on that when parliamentary time allows.
I am aware that I have not covered all the points raised in the debate, but I have prevented myself from responding to some of the ludicrous claims from the Opposition. I want to express my full support for my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is doing an incredible job as our First Secretary of State and is a trailblazer for women in politics across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and the rest of the House will know, this Government take standards in public life incredibly seriously. I welcome this debate and all the views expressed on the Nolan principles, which have been heard by the Government, and I look forward to further conversations as the Government report back on many of the issues raised today.
Susan Murray
I thank everyone who took part in the debate for their speeches and interventions and the Minister for her replies.
The Nolan principles are raised regularly in this House by Members, and rightly so. Although we hear concerns, as we have today, that the erosion of standards risks widening the chasm between the public and our institutions and politics, I am heartened to hear that the seven Nolan principles are valued and that their importance is acknowledged. They are as meaningful today as they were 30 years ago, forming a contract between every holder of public office and the British public. Perhaps rules should not be the culture, but they should influence and guide the culture, and the system should be fair and reasonable, based on principles and transparency.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Nolan principles.
Petitions
Animal Cruelty and Domestic Abuse
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker and his Deputies for allowing me time for this debate. G. K. Chesterton said that
“cruelty is, perhaps, the worst kind of sin”,
and cruelty comes in many forms, but when it begins with cruelty to animals, which then becomes cruelty to people, it becomes barbaric. “Barbarism” is the word that came to my mind when I was first approached by my constituent Annette Bramley, who is in the Gallery this evening. She described to me the way that her beloved daughter, Holly, was murdered. “Courage” is another word that occurs to me, for Annette’s courage, which has led us here today in her ceaseless campaign to honour Holly by ensuring that future tragedies of that kind do not occur, is notable and admirable. It inspires me and has inspired many others.
Annette’s grief at the loss of her daughter is compounded by the appalling way that her daughter was killed by the worthless, wicked husband who murdered her. It came after years of cruelty towards her pets. Holly was just 26 years of age when she died in 2023, but she and her pets had been subjected to years of cruelty before that, involving both physical cruelty to those animals, and the coercive control associated with that towards Holly. The harm that her husband inflicted on animals served to frighten, torture, and control Holly. That vile man killed the family pets—the hamsters, a puppy and so on—in ways that are unimaginably wicked. In common with so many abusers, he exploited her love for animals and used that against her. Eventually, as is the case so often, the violence towards the animals turned into violence towards Holly.
Subsequently convicted and sentenced, Nicholas Metson, the man concerned, had previously been reported to the police for extreme cruelty towards pets. The violent behaviour did not first appear on the fatal day that Holly died—there were warning signs of animal cruelty for years before. Annette says that if she had known for how long he had been hurting the animals, and so Holly, she could have stopped what happened to her daughter.
Annette’s courageous campaign since has been for what she calls, as I call it today, Holly’s law, a national register of those guilty of animal cruelty to help prevent violence against women. She wants to help others who are suffering similarly, and so has proposed Holly’s law. It would create a kind of register so that the police would know about animal abuse convictions when responding to reports of domestic abuse. I strongly support this.
Better tracking and collecting of data on animal abusers can surely help in the campaign against domestic abuse, in addition to preventing further abuses of beloved pets. The correlation between animal abuse and domestic violence is proven, persuasive and undeniable. Domestic abuse charities have long been clear that there is a real and frightening link between the two. It stands to reason that people who are abusive to other people surely will not feel any guilt or doubts about harming animals in the same way.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals cites research that shows that 71% of domestic abuse victims report threats towards their pets. In my home county of Lincolnshire, the police revealed that animal abuse was reported in 3,000 domestic abuse incidents over just three years. The National Centre for Domestic Violence found that 64,000 civil protection order witness statements refer to the link between animal abuse and domestic abuse. The RSPCA and NSPCA have both highlighted that many domestic abuse victims report that their pets have also been abused, tortured or killed.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap in the system at the moment, in that abusers can retain legal ownership of those animals and it becomes difficult for the victim to get hold of their animals? Animal rescue charities are reporting that animals are left for long periods in their care while cases go back and forth, often leaving animals unable to be rehomed at the end of a traumatic case?
Sir John Hayes
Both those points are salient, as is the fear that people have of leaving the relationship because of what might happen to the animals. This is used as a means of control, but the animals and the individuals concerned—the people, the owners—become frightened, and in the end the animals become neglected, as the hon. Lady has described, so there is a series of correlations. I know the Government are aware of this, and I shall say why in a second, but now is the time for action.
We know that an early warning sign of an abusive partner is the way that they treat pets, as it is one of the questions asked in the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment—the DASH—that is routinely used by the police across the UK to determine a victim’s risk. Research undertaken by Refuge4Pets, which works with Dogs Trust, found that almost nine in 10 households who experienced domestic abuse have said that their animals were abused first. In 49% of those cases, animals were killed by the abuser. It is not just neglect or cruelty—it is the death of animals, alongside the death of people.
A study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that animal abusers are five times as likely to also harm other humans. Some 70% of people who committed animal abuse also had criminal records that included crimes of violence, property, drugs or disorderly behaviour. In 88% of households experiencing domestic abuse, the perpetrator also abused animals. Some 97% of domestic abuse professionals encountered cases of pets being harmed as coercion.
In 49% of those cases, the animals died, as they did in the case of Holly’s pets. So the correlation between animal abuse and domestic abuse is crystal clear.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I pay tribute to Holly’s mum, Annette, and the right hon. Member for the relentless campaigning they have done to promote Holly’s law. That is hugely important, and they have not given up on it. With all those stats about the link between the abuse of humans and the abuse of animals, we are talking about how we can protect women and children from avoidable abuse, but many abusers start as children. We saw that in the case of Holly’s partner, and we saw it recently in the case of Russell Brand, who as a child was kicking his dog down the stairs. There must be a way of recording and escalating such incidents. Many children who abuse animals are receiving abuse themselves, and when they grow up they are significantly more likely to harm humans. There must be a way of intervening early to prevent these children, who are often victims of abuse, from going on to cause abuse.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the campaign, which has been notable; I thank him. This is about threat and risk. Where threat becomes apparent, risk can be mitigated. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and I spend a lot of our lives talking about threat and risk in respect of national security, and we have studied those matters closely over a long time. It is absolutely true that the early identification of the kind of risks that the hon. Gentleman describes can prevent their escalation. That is essentially what we are calling on the Government to do.
The Government want to do more on domestic abuse, and they have said that—I shall say a little more about that in a moment or two. The correlation, as I have described it, is clear; we now need to decide what we are going to do about it. We can speak endlessly about the cases, which do not amount just to this particular case, tragic though it is and personal though it is to me and my constituent. Annette wants to protect other people. That is her mission—to prevent this happening to another mother, another family, another victim.
The problem is that animal cruelty is regarded as an animal welfare matter, quite separate from human safeguarding. This is the challenge for the Government. It is clear that there is a gap in the way that the Government treat these serious problems, though they recognise that both are just that—serious. Earlier this year, Annette and I met the then Minister for safeguarding, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), to make the case for a potential animal abuse register. I put on the record how well the hon. Member responded to my request for the meeting and how she conducted that meeting. She made my constituent feel valued, listened carefully to what we both said, and committed to Home Office work, which, again, I shall say a little more about in a few moments.
Vikki Slade
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap in the safeguarding legislation, in that sexual offences against animals do not lead to someone going on to the sex offenders’ register, when there is clearly an abuse of power in those cases?
Sir John Hayes
That is a pertinent intervention, because one of my colleagues in the House of Lords has taken up that very issue. It is a parallel issue, but a related one. Although it is a separate matter, it should certainly be taken into account in the work that the Home Office is doing. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.
To give credit to Ministers, work is ongoing in respect of domestic abuse statutory guidance and controlling and coercive behaviour statutory guidance. Will the Minister update the House on that work, and particularly on when it will be completed? The Minister on the Treasury Bench probably knows this, but I was on the Front Bench for my party for 19 years consecutively, and was a Minister in countless Departments; I just say to her that it is critical that very strict timetables are set. Ministers must demand of their officials that things will be done within limits and to a pre-agreed schedule. If they do not, then, with the best will in the world—and this is not about a lack of will—these things often drift. Please can we therefore have an update and some real assurances about when this is going to happen?
We may end up with a form of animal protection disclosure scheme that allows the police to disclose an individual’s history of animal cruelty and convictions to relevant organisations. It would be modelled on Clare’s law—the domestic violence disclosure scheme—and would operate under the common law duty of police disclosure. Under Clare’s law, as the Minister will know, after making an initial application, the information must be provided within 28 days. At present, UK animal cruelty convictions are recorded on the police national database, but police face the challenge of fragmented information sharing. A co-ordinated approach must be possible, and I hope the Minister can set out details of how that might work.
We know, too, that only 26 of 43 police forces reported that their mandated training on coercion covers the involvement of pets in domestic abuse. Can the Minister clarify whether that could be made mandatory for all forces? You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, the difference between guidance and statutory guidance, and this may be a case where statutory guidance is necessary. Indeed, just this week, I raised this issue on the Floor of the House with the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She committed to meet me to move things forward.
The US state of Tennessee introduced an animal abuse register in 2016. It is a public register listing convictions, with offenders remaining on it for five years in the case of persistent offenders. There are obviously concerns about having a public register, but I wonder what lessons might be learned from the US, given that acts of cruelty against animals have been tracked by the FBI since 2016 in the same way as arson, burglary, assault and even homicide. That has allowed police to monitor and tackle the extent of animal neglect, torture and other abuse. It may be that we can indeed learn lessons on best practice from elsewhere.
Finally, I will mention the example of the convicted rapist Russell Brand, which was raised in the Chamber by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) earlier this week and again today. We now know of Brand’s shocking offences against women, which lasted for so long, but it is an example of his cruelty to animals that is perhaps particularly relevant to this debate. Brand’s account in a book—if you can call it that—of his history of abuse of his pet dog was surely a warning sign of what was to come. When designing policy, we must be cognisant of ensuring that relevant information, including admissions and other intelligence where appropriate—not just convictions—can be considered. Being able to consider such information is critical, because not all inquiries into animal cruelty lead to convictions. That is one of the problems we face, and addressing it needs to be built into the response to my call for Holly’s law.
This matter has significant cross-party support. I have received support from Members in all parts of this House, and a letter I sent to the Leader of the House seeking a debate on this matter attracted nearly 60 signatures from MPs of all political colours. Annette Bramley’s campaign for Holly’s law has caught the imagination precisely because it is just plain common sense. Her online petition has attracted more than 60,000 signatures. Annette’s campaign is supported by the charity Domestic Abuse Alliance, which has said that it:
“supports initiatives like Holly’s Law that address the overlapping harms seen in abusive households”.
I would like to add that it also has the strong support of my local paper, the Lincolnshire Free Press, and I pay tribute to the reporter Jenny Beake, who has been a great champion of Annette and our campaign. The campaign is also supported by the Naturewatch Foundation, a charity dedicated to ending animal cruelty, which argues that animal abuse is often linked to coercive control and escalating violence, but is not always identified as such within police disclosures.
My mission is to bring justice for my constituent and to make Holly’s law a reality. I will do all I can to help prevent what happened to Annette’s daughter from ever happening again, for as Edmund Burke said:
“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this really important debate, and I thank him for the thoughtful way in which he has set out these issues. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to Annette Bramley, who joins us in the Gallery and who has campaigned tirelessly in memory of her daughter Holly.
Holly’s case is a deeply distressing reminder that cruelty towards animals can form part of a wider pattern of coercion, control and domestic abuse. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned, he and Annette met the former Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls earlier this year to discuss their proposals. I understand that those were very constructive discussions, and I am glad to hear that. I also note his recent request to continue this important conversation with Government Ministers. With that in mind, I am pleased to be able to set out the Government’s position today.
Let me start by saying that the Government take the issues of animal cruelty and domestic abuse extremely seriously. As we have heard this evening, evidence shows that there is a strong link between pet abuse and domestic abuse. That is why the Government are working to take forward specific actions relating to this issue as part of our violence against women and girls strategy and our animal welfare strategy. I will touch on those important actions in further detail later.
Let me turn to the proposed animal abuse register. I understand why there is public support for this idea and the reassurance that it is intended to provide, but it is important to say that systems are already in place to both record and share this type of information when it is right to do so. Convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are recorded on the police national computer, and enforcement bodies such as the police and local authorities have access to that information. There are also established disclosure mechanisms that allow the police to share relevant information with those who need it. That means that relevant information can be used where it is needed for licensing, safeguarding and public protection. The more effective approach is targeted disclosure, ensuring that relevant information is shared lawfully, proportionately and with the appropriate bodies at the right time.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister will be pleased to know that I agree, but there is inconsistency among police forces, which I mentioned in my speech. One of the things that is absolutely necessary is that consistency is delivered, perhaps through improved guidance—I would like there to be statutory guidance—on what is required of them in the terms that she has just set out.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Courts already have strong disqualification powers, which can be lifelong where appropriate. A mandatory lifetime ban would remove judicial discretion and could create disproportionate outcomes. I believe that the right hon. Member raised some of those points previously with the Home Office and that he continues to engage directly on them.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Would it not in fact be much more useful for police to push that information or in some way to tag addresses where this sort of thing happens? It is okay to hold the information to oneself, but it is of value only if it is shared with the relevant agencies willingly and openly. The Minister is saying that the information would be shared in a proportionate way, but it needs to be pushed towards the relevant agencies so that they know what they are looking for.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
The hon. Member has put her comments on the record. I will ask the Home Office to write to her directly on those points.
I am aware that there is support for the creation of a specific animal protection disclosure scheme more broadly. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is already working with the Home Office to support the effective use of the existing domestic violence disclosure scheme for animal cruelty offences. The scheme provides guidance for police to use existing powers to disclose information about an individual’s history of violent or abusive behaviour where that information is relevant to protecting a victim or potential victim from domestic abuse.
Police can also make a disclosure proactively where they believe someone may be at risk. Importantly, disclosures are not limited to criminal convictions or domestic abuse offences; the police may disclose information relating to animal cruelty where they assess it is relevant to the risk posed to an individual. I understand that the Home Office is currently reviewing how the scheme works in practice to ensure it is applied consistently and effectively across police forces. I am sure the points that have been raised in this debate have been noted—they are on record, and I am sure they will be heard.
I also welcome the proactive approach that the RSPCA has taken in exploring how information on animal cruelty can be shared more effectively with the police. It recognises that the information gathered by its inspectors can have a much wider role in protecting both animals and people. The RSPCA is working with the Home Office and the police to explore how that relevant information from its visits and investigations can be shared more effectively to support safeguarding and risk assessment processes.
Sir John Hayes
I am aware that we do not have long, so I will not intervene again, but the critical point is that this is not just about convictions; it is about incidents, because a lot of incidents do not lead to a conviction. That data needs to be shared in the way the Minister has described. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) said, it also has to be pushed forward to other authorities. Local authorities are a very good example—whether they are dealing with housing, education, or safeguarding of one sort or another, they need that information. It needs to be proactively shared.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
The right hon. Member raises an important point. This is about looking beyond convictions and making better use of the relevant information to help protect animals and people. The aim is to help the police build a fuller picture of risks and identify opportunities to act earlier, while ensuring information is accurate and shared lawfully and proportionately.
The concerns raised in this debate underline the importance of practical action to protect animals and support victim-survivors. To address an intervention made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) regarding sex acts against animals and the sex offenders register, for the new offence of sexual activity with an animal, the notification requirements will still apply in specified circumstances. We will write to her with further information on the specific points she raised.
The animal welfare strategy for England sets out DEFRA’s commitments to help protect animals facing harm in domestic violence settings. We are working closely with the Links Group, which is doing important work to help veterinary professionals recognise signs of non-accidental injuries to animals. Alongside this, we are working to raise awareness of specialist pet fostering services that provide temporary care for the pets of victim-survivors fleeing domestic abuse. These include the Dogs Trust Freedom Project, Cats Protection Lifeline, Refuge4Pets and the Endeavour Project. Earlier this year, Baroness Hayman visited the Cats Protection centre in south London and saw at first hand the impact of the important work being done in this area.
We are also working to strengthen protections for victim-survivors’ personal information held on microchip databases. Across Government, we are also looking at how stronger statutory guidance could better highlight the link between pet abuse and domestic violence. To inform future policy, DEFRA has commissioned research to look more closely at the issue and to identify additional opportunities for intervention. The research will report in 2027, and we will carefully consider the findings to help shape the next steps. Before I close, I will reference the direct, clear question from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about timings. I will ensure that the Home Office writes to him, but my understanding is that it will be coming forward with the work in early 2027.
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate and all those who contributed to it and who continue to engage directly with the Government. The link between animal cruelty and domestic abuse is a serious one and, as I have set out, tackling it remains a high and clear priority for the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Highways (Financing) Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, let me set out the usual preliminary details. Please turn all electric devices to silent mode. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings, except for the water provided. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. I remind hon. Members that the selection list shows how amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate, but any Divisions will take place in the order in which items appear in the amendment paper.
Clause 25
Licence holder’s tolling scheme: content and procedure
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 25, page 18, line 14, at end insert
“including a reduced rate from tolls for vehicles registered to Disabled Persons’ Badge holders;”.
This amendment ensures that toll reductions for Blue Badge Holders in a statutory condition of a licence, rather than to the discretion of licence holders.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 5.
Amendment 42, in clause 25, page 18, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) A tolling scheme must provide for lower tolls to be charged for residents living within an area in close proximity to the chargeable highway.
(1B) ‘Close proximity’ under subsection (1A) is to be determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the highest tier local authority in the areas through which the highway passes in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment gives local residents a right to discounted tolls on toll roads that they would expect to use regularly due to geographic proximity.
Clause stand part.
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Amendment 41 would introduce a requirement for blue badge holder discounts on any toll road. It would close a major loophole in clause 25 by making toll exemptions for blue badge holders mandatory rather than optional.
Clause 25 states that a tolling scheme must specify exemptions, leaving it entirely to operator discretion whether any exemptions are offered at all. Although people in the private sector sometimes do the right thing, they are not always necessarily wholly motivated to do so of their own accord. They may therefore need a little encouragement or requirement.
Disabled drivers rely on private vehicles for essential mobility and must not be subjected to commercial toll charges when accessing healthcare, work or local services. Why does clause 25 leave exemptions for disabled drivers, and indeed emergency services, to corporate discretion rather than enshrining them as mandatory rights in primary legislation?
Amendment 42 would establish a statutory right to discounted toll rates for local residents living in close proximity to a toll highway. Local residents who are near major crossings such as the Dartford crossing or lower Thames crossing bear the daily brunt of construction, disruption, air pollution and localised traffic gridlocks. As Edmund King of the AA pointed out in his public evidence to the Committee, frequent local users who cross toll structures for work or daily life face an unfair tax on jobs without dedicated resident discounts. Michael Whelan, the general manager of M6toll, told us that M6toll had introduced a local resident discount, holding local trips to £4, demonstrating that resident schemes are practical and commercially viable. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I have a couple of brief remarks to make on the amendments tabled by the third party.
On the point about blue badge holders receiving a discount in statute, of course we all want to see those in society who find themselves in need of a blue badge, with whatever disability they might have, being treated fairly and supported in getting about and living their life. I am not certain, however, that the blue badge system is the correct mechanism for linking that to any tolling regime, as amendment 41 seeks. His Majesty’s official Opposition are not sold on that point.
With amendment 42, however, we have considerably more sympathy. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out the impact on residents near any toll road—in this case, predominantly the lower Thames crossing—who probably have to use it quite regularly to get to and from their homes, businesses, children’s places of education or whatever it might be. Critically, that phase of construction can be incredibly disruptive to somebody’s life. Believe me, Mr Wishart, I know the pain of that from the many infrastructure projects in my own constituency.
The payback for putting up with years of construction— or with some projects, potentially decades—must surely be some fair recognition in legislation. In this case, that could be a discount on any toll for residents within a set geographic distance from the new road as it is built under the licence given to any operator under this proposed legislation. I am looking briefly to the hon. Member for Dartford, who I am sure would want his residents to receive such a discount for using the lower Thames crossing, as I think any of us would if we saw new infrastructure of that type being built in the vicinity of our constituency. It is surely a matter of fairness that those who live near a new scheme and put up with its construction, and who by definition will probably have to use it for access more than most, should receive that discount.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I will speak to both amendments.
Currently, Dartford residents who use the Dartford crossing are able to do so at a considerable discount. The definition covers residents within the Dartford borough council area, who either pay £25 a year to use the crossing as many times as they like or pay £12.50 a year for 50 crossings. That represents good value for Dartford residents and gives them some compensation for having to live next to a crossing that takes all the burden of traffic crossing the Thames outside London and that therefore causes huge congestion and significant problems with air quality.
I imagine that when the lower Thames crossing is opened, residents of Gravesham or in the area around and north of the crossing will also want a resident discount, to compensate them for living near a busy crossing. The Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing will both still be busy, albeit that traffic will be much better distributed between the two, which will certainly be a blessing for Dartford residents.
I totally understand why the Minister does not want this set out in the Bill; I am sure he will say that such things should be dealt with by the regulator and the licence holder. However, I hope he will give Dartford residents some assurance that that conversation will be had at the right moment, as we expect, so they can have confidence that they will continue to benefit from the current concessions and maybe even see them extended to both crossings, as might be the case for Gravesham residents using the Dartford crossing in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Wishart, and to welcome you back to the Committee. I am glad to see that most of us have made it back after the excitement of last week; I hope we will continue to have some very thought-provoking debates.
I turn to the interesting amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. Amendment 41 would make it a statutory requirement for any licensed highway to include a discount for blue badge holders. We all recognise the importance of ensuring affordability and the need for specific groups to be taken into account. I can confirm that the existing scheme for exempting vehicles used by or for people with disabilities that is already in place in Dartford will continue to apply for the first control period, which is nine years from the date of the transaction. That would also be extended to the lower Thames crossing. I am happy to make that commitment on the record today.
Beyond the first control period, the hon. Member and I are aligned in the view that the needs of individual groups must be considered in the setting of tolls, and that suitable discounts or exemptions should continue to apply. However, my view is that that is already captured by the regime set out in the Bill. A fundamental tenet of the duty on the Office of Rail and Road is that it must act at all times in the manner
“best calculated to further the interests of users”,
which of course means all users.
There is an established precedent that toll operators offer toll concessions for disabled users. Our issue with the amendment is that generally those schemes are tied to eligibility for exemptions from vehicle excise duty, as is the case with the current Dart charge. That exemption recognises the additional mobility needs and costs faced by people whose disability significantly affects their ability to move around.
As a public sector body, the ORR is already bound in legislation to advance equality of opportunity for people with protected characteristics, through the public sector equality duty. That will be supplemented by a duty to further the interests of users. Both duties will apply in the setting of tolling conditions and the ORR’s tolling code. Additionally, the Government will be able to issue guidance to the ORR on the exercise of its tolling functions.
Olly Glover
I understand the Minister’s point, but does he agree that a problem with taking what he says on trust is that at the moment, as far as I am aware, there is no plan to develop or publish the ORR’s code on the charging of tolls before the Bill is passed? We would need to see that code to be assured that it is sufficiently robust to do what the Minister says.
Justin Madders
In our previous sittings, the Committee has debated at length why that detail will not be possible at this stage—it is simply because the level of information on financial transactions is not there—but I have stated on the record what our intention is and what safeguards and measures are in the Bill to ensure that these groups are protected. Unfortunately, the phrasing of amendment 41 does not address the protections that are currently offered.
I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s good intentions, but “blue badges” is a colloquial term. The scheme varies from local authority to local authority. It is primarily not about travel between places, but about ensuring that people can park accessibly at a particular location. It does not relate to a person’s need for a vehicle in the first place; it relates solely to their needs when they have arrived at their destination.
I therefore do not think that amendment 41 is the right one to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I absolutely understand those concerns, but I am confident that the existing framework represents the right approach. It is a robust protection of disabled users, but it also has flexibility, meaning that as our understanding of people’s needs changes, or as scheme criteria change, the ORR can continue to act dynamically to protect the interests of all users. I hope that I have given him some assurance that we intend to deal with the matter in the way that his amendment indicates.
Amendment 42 is about local discounts. On the lower Thames crossing and on Dartford, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same commitment that I made on amendment 41: that for the first control period, which is for nine years from the date of transaction, the local resident discount scheme will remain in place. Beyond that, I believe that the framework strikes the right balance in ensuring that the ORR is representing the specific needs of all users, supported by guidance issued by the Department.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, says that he is looking for recognition in the Bill that local needs will be taken into account. I believe that the Bill does provide that recognition. It is right that this is a framework Bill to secure outcomes based on clear duties and expectations.
In practice, requiring a local resident discount in the way the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage proposes would not give the protection that I think he wants. An operator could fulfil an obligation to carry out a local discount simply by taking 1p off tolls for local residents or offering £1 off an annual pass. That would meet the letter of the law under the amendment, but would clearly ignore the spirit of what we are trying to achieve. In those situations, the ORR would not be able to intervene in the way we have set up in the Bill, because the licence holder could simply say, “We have provided a local residents discount scheme,” albeit that their scheme was not in the spirit that we intend.
In the Bill, we hope to deliver a practical, flexible solution that allows the Government to outline our clear expectations, that empowers the ORR to set a fixed requirement and that requires the ORR to act in a manner that is fair and transparent. It is through that framework that we will deliver a fair outcome for all users and recognise the interests of specific user groups.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has set out, the level of detail that currently applies to local discounts is not something that we would want to make explicit in the Bill, as it would not have the flexibility that the ORR needs in order to deal with future discounts. It is not a fixed concept; it is based on flexibility and response to local need, as my hon. Friend so eloquently set out. The Government therefore cannot support amendment 42.
Greg Smith
I understand the Minister’s argument, but it is predicated on good will. As his words will be taken into account in any future analysis or interpretation of legislation, can he confirm that he believes that it is at least right in principle that residents in an area near any new road get a discount not just for living close to it and using it, but as a form of compensation or recognition for having lived through construction?
Justin Madders
I absolutely understand the shadow Minister’s point. The whole point of this work is to make life easier for local residents. There will of course be some disruption during construction but, in the case of the lower Thames crossing, the local road network is quite a long way from the majority of the works. The powers of the regulator, the opportunity for guidance to be given to stakeholder groups and the overriding duties of the ORR are sufficient to give us confidence that the intentions that I have espoused today will be delivered.
My amendment 5 is intended to put beyond doubt that the penalty charge referred to in clause 25 relates to a failure to pay the toll. I hope hon. Members will agree that it is a straightforward amendment made for the purposes of clarity.
Clause 25, as amended, will set out the information that a licence holder must include in its tolling scheme. The scheme must clearly identify the highway where tolls will apply and explain when drivers will have to pay. It must set out which vehicle types will be charged, the amount of the toll and any exemptions or reduced rates. It must explain how and when tolls must be paid and how the licence holder will record and collect payments. It must describe the information that will be used to decide whether a toll is due or has been paid. It must also explain what might happen if a toll is not paid, including the level of any penalty or other charge. Importantly, the scheme must explain how a driver can challenge a toll.
The clause will allow different tolls to apply in different circumstances. For example, charges may vary by time of day, distance travelled, type or use of vehicle or method of payment. The licence holder must publish the scheme in a way that brings it to the attention of people likely to be affected. It must also provide a copy to anyone who asks.
The clause will therefore ensure that drivers can understand when tolls apply, how much they must pay and what rights they have if they wish to challenge a charge. I hope that hon. Members can see the logic of setting that out in the Bill. I commend clause 25, as amended, to the Committee.
Olly Glover
On amendment 41, I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, although it does underline the importance of the ORR code. I note that the next group includes a Conservative amendment on that topic, which will be important to discuss. I am not persuaded by the Minister’s comments that it is not possible to produce the code before the Bill becomes law. We were told very similar things about the licence and the access and use policy in relation to the Railways Bill, and yet the Government eventually decided that they could indeed publish those things before the Bill became law. I encourage the Minister to adopt that not necessarily very common instance of good practice from his Department and apply it to this Bill.
I hear what the Minister says about amendment 42, but this is a very important issue and I wish to press it to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 41.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 5, in clause 25, page 18, line 22, after “charge” insert—
“in respect of a failure to pay a toll”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment clarifies that provision in a tolling scheme about rates of penalty charges is limited to penalty charges in respect of non-payment of tolls.
Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 25, page 18, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) A tolling scheme must provide for lower tolls to be charged for residents living within an area in close proximity to the chargeable highway.
(1B) ‘Close proximity’ under subsection (1A) is to be determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the highest tier local authority in the areas through which the highway passes in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment gives local residents a right to discounted tolls on toll roads that they would expect to use regularly due to geographic proximity.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 69, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—
“after the ORR has published its code relating to the charging of tolls under section 26.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until the ORR has published its code relating to the charging of tolls.
Justin Madders
I will address clause 26, which requires the ORR to publish a code on how tolls should be charged. The code will set out the principles and standards that tolling arrangements should meet. Its purpose is to ensure that tolls are charged fairly and transparently for road users. The ORR may update or replace the code at any time, and any updated or replacement code must also be published. The ORR may leave out information if publishing it would be likely to harm a person’s commercial interests.
Clause 26 therefore provides clear and independent oversight of how licence holders charge tolls, while protecting genuinely sensitive commercial information, and I commend it to the Committee. I will respond to the Opposition amendment once I have heard what the shadow Minister has to say.
Greg Smith
I wish to speak to amendment 69, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. There is a recurring theme in this Bill, and in plenty of other legislation debated in this and the previous Session: we are being asked to trust—throughout all the stages of the Bill, including here in Committee this morning—that something will be produced that is material and intrinsic to the legislation that we are debating and voting on. I could almost describe it as an “It’ll Be Alright on the Night” principle: “It’ll be fine—it’ll be published at some later date. Pass the legislation, then we can judge what the code actually says once the Bill has received Royal Assent and become an Act.” That opens up many questions for this Committee, for the wider House and, most importantly, for all the travelling public across the country.
Amendment 69 is, I would have thought, relatively straightforward. It would prevent any measure in this Act from coming into force until the ORR has published its code relating to the charging of tolls. It cannot possibly be unreasonable that the principles and rules—not the pounds and pence—must be known and clear to all those who may at some point need to pay those tolls, be they a private motorist or members of our incredible logistics sector and road hauliers across the country. It cannot be unreasonable that, when they are making their business plans, they ought to be clear what those rules will be. The regulator’s toll charging code is absolutely central to how motorists will be treated.
I simply put a few questions to the Minister, who I suspect will be resistant to the amendment—I suspect we will hear similar arguments to those he has given on similar amendments to different parts of the Bill previously. If the Government are to resist the amendment, will the Minister answer whether the code will explain the principles of setting tolls, payment transparency and the treatment of road users and toll payers? How far in advance will the code be published in draft and subject to consultation?
What consultation will any such code be subject to? Will that consultation be meaningful, or will it be the sort of consultation that we have become all too familiar with in recent years? Within the confines of that consultation, how will motorists and operators be able to understand with detail and clarity what any such code will actually mean for them? In the real world and in the lived experience of all of us across all sorts of different sectors, we often get these sorts of codes and principles published, and they are not very clear. They are open to a lot of interpretation. If we do not have it set out as clearly as possible now, how will the real users of the roads be able to contribute to the way that code is shaped and get the answers that they deserve—before they find themselves trapped on camera, with a penalty charge notice through the post, trying to understand what on earth went wrong in the first place?
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for reminding us all of Denis Norden and “It’ll be Alright on the Night”. I am not sure I can give him that level of wisdom today, but I will attempt to answer his questions.
The shadow Minister has of course correctly predicted that we will not be accepting the amendment. I hope he is going to give us the lottery numbers for Saturday night as well—his powers of prediction are very strong; he may even anticipate what I am going to say. The amendment would force the ORR to publish a tolling code in the abstract before the Act has commenced and therefore before the licensing authority could actually consult on the licence, which is required under clause 4 of the Bill. That could slow down or delay the delivery of the lower Thames crossing.
The tolling code will set out the principles and constraints that the licence holder must follow when proposing, setting and implementing tolls.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister is describing the process he wishes to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire made an important point about principles. Surely the Minister and the Government know the principles they wish to deploy in the collection of tolls. That should be something he can explain here today.
Justin Madders
If the hon. Lady shows a little patience, I shall hopefully do that for her. The important thing in terms of the Government principles is the guidance from the Secretary of State. That guidance will specify to the ORR the various parameters, and the ORR must have due regard to that guidance. It is clear, from what I have said, that we intend to include something on local discounts in the guidance. Ultimately, we would want that to be reflected in the tolling code published by the ORR. Of course, the ORR is independent and therefore the exact content of the code will be up to it.
As I was saying, the tolling code will set out the principles. It will include requirements around how the tolling regime is structured. It will also cover how final charges are published and communicated to users, alongside governance arrangements, including consultation. As I have said, in making its code, the ORR will have due regard to guidance set by the Department and the Secretary of State. The details of the code are ultimately up to the ORR, and it is necessarily dependent on any guidance provided by the Government and the specific arrangements set out in the licence.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The Minister spoke about consultation. This part of the Bill also talks about revising and replacing the code, so can he assure us that consultation will also take place on that?
Justin Madders
I am happy to give that assurance.
The ORR will consult on the tolling code in advance of the first tolling scheme. I cannot give the shadow Minister a precise timing, because this is obviously all dependent on when the financial transactions are completed. That is, in essence, why we cannot support the amendment.
To make the commencement of the Bill dependent on the publication of the code would create a Catch-22 scenario: Government guidance and the licence could not be finalised until the commencement of the Act, but without Government guidance and the licence, the ORR could not meaningfully finalise and consult on the content of the code. That is why, unfortunately, we cannot accept the shadow Minister’s amendment.
The Chair
Amendment 69 may be voted on later in the proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Enforcement of tolls: penalty charges
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 27, page 19, line 16, leave out “this section” and insert “subsection (1)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 7 to 10.
Amendment 52, in clause 27, page 20, line 4, at end insert—
“(8) Regulations within subsection (4)(b) cannot set a penalty charge at more than £100 for the failure to pay a toll.”
This amendment would put a cap on the amount of penalty charges.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Clause 28 stand part.
Government new clause 1—Other penalty charges.
Amendment 59, in clause 100, page 66, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) regulations under section 27(1) (enforcement of tolls: penalty charges)”
This amendment would ensure that regulations about penalty charges were subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 71, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert
“after the Secretary of State has published details of the policy on penalty charges required by section 27.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until after the Secretary of State had published details of the proposed scheme for the enforcement of penalty charges.
Justin Madders
We have a bit of a mega grouping here, so I will try to take the Committee through it slowly and carefully.
I will briefly talk about the provisions generally before I get into the detail. The provisions relate to the enforcement and non-payment of tolls. Government amendments 6 to 10 and clause 27 clarify the framework for unpaid tolls and penalty charges, including responsibility for notification and enforcement. Government amendments 11 to 13 and clause 28 strengthen the offences of deliberate evasion and unauthorised removal of penalty notices while protecting users from unauthorised toll collection. New clause 1 extends the framework to additional tolling-related penalty charges, with safeguards for notification and offences for fraudulent evasion.
Amendments 10, 8, 7 and 6 are fundamentally procedural. They reassign the regulation-making power for notification and enforcement from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor. That is in line with standard practice and represents the appropriate designation of authority. Amendment 9 requires that regulations relating to the imposition of a penalty charge for non-payment of a toll must specify whether the penalty charge is intended to displace the toll due or is in addition to it. That will add clarity to the regime and avoid uncertainty for users.
Clause 27, as it will be amended, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about penalty charges where a toll is not paid and for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations about the notification and enforcement of that penalty charge. Those regulations may allow the licence holder to issue penalty charges and set out how the penalty system will operate. That may include who must pay the penalty, how they will be notified, when and how payment must be made, and how unpaid penalties may be enforced.
The regulations may set the penalty rates directly or allow the ORR to set them within the framework established by the regulations. Different penalty rates may be set for different circumstances. The arrangements may also include reduced amounts for prompt payment, increased amounts for late payment and administration fees. If the Secretary of State proposes to set the penalty rates in the regulations, they must consult the ORR first.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Last night, we heard from the chief executive of Royal Mail about the terrible problems of huge delays in mail being delivered. It is sometimes the case that people are unable to pay a fine without incurring the additional fine for late payment because of the failure of Royal Mail to deliver the penalty charge in an appropriate time. What provision could be made to cope with that particular problem, which seems to be widespread in the country?
Justin Madders
We will come to that issue later in the Bill, so if my hon. Friend bears with me, I will address it then. In summary, clause 27 provides a clear framework for dealing with unpaid tolls, while ensuring that the detailed rules and penalty rates are set through regulations or by the ORR within that regulatory framework.
Amendments 11 and 12 extend the scope of the offences under clause 28(3) to cases where a person seeks to avoid payment of a penalty charge for non-payment of a toll, as well as to those seeking to avoid payment of the toll itself. It is plain to me that those offences, principally for fraudulently seeking to avoid payment, should apply equally in relation to a penalty charge as to a toll.
Amendment 13 creates a new offence within clause 28 for the unlawful removal of a penalty charge. This is standard in relation to the issuance of penalty charges and is principally there to discourage anyone other than the person for whom the charge is intended from removing the notice from the vehicle. That ensures that the intended recipient gets proper notice.
Clause 28, as it will be amended, deals with deliberate attempts to avoid paying tolls, as well as the unauthorised charging of tolls. It makes it an offence to deliberately interfere with tolling equipment or obscure a vehicle registration plate to avoid paying a toll or being identified for non-payment. It is also an offence to deliberately use false information or documents to seek to avoid payment of a toll or a penalty charge. Those offences can result in an unlimited fine, imprisonment or both.
The clause also sets out that it is an offence for anyone not authorised to do so to remove a notification of a penalty charge from a vehicle. That can attract a fine of up to £500. The clause also protects road users by making it an offence to charge or collect tolls without complying with the Bill’s requirements, or without being authorised to do so. That can attract a fine of up to £1,000. A person carrying out tolling functions on behalf of the licence holder under clause 31 is not caught by that restriction. Clause 28 therefore provides sanctions against deliberate toll and penalty charge evasion, while also protecting road users from unauthorised toll collection.
Government new clause 1 gives regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor to make regulations about the imposition and enforcement of penalty charges related to a specified list of additional matters related to tolling. The list includes matters such as the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device and, where certain equipment or documentation is required as part of a tolling scheme, a failure to carry them. Those are charges that the holder of a licence could conceivably need to levy, but they would be conferred only as needed. As is the case for penalty charges related to non-payment of tolls, the clause would allow for the rates to be set either by the Secretary of State or by the Office of Rail and Road as the independent regulator.
As with the other penalty charges in the Bill, the new clause includes two offences. First, it is an offence to make false representations, including by using a false document, with intent to avoid paying a penalty charge or being identified as having failed to pay one. On summary conviction, that carries imprisonment up to the maximum term for summary offences, a fine or both. Mere non-payment is not itself the offence; an unpaid charge is recoverable as a civil debt.
Secondly, it is an offence to remove a penalty charge notice fixed to a vehicle unless the person is its registered keeper, is using it with the keeper’s authority, or acts with the authority of either such person or the licence holder. That protects proper notification while allowing authorised removal. On summary conviction, the offence carries a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. I commend these provisions to the Committee, and will respond to the shadow Minister’s amendments in closing.
Greg Smith
This is indeed a mega grouping. Before I come to our amendments, I will speak to the Government amendments, most of which are tidying. We do not have an issue with the majority of them, but Government amendment 13 confuses me. I appreciate that there are provisions later in the Bill that may address some of my issues, but the amendment talks about removing penalty charge notices “fixed” to vehicles. Now, that opens up a very big question. How, on a moving highway, as someone uses a toll road, could a penalty charge notice ever become “fixed” to a vehicle in the first place?
This is not a parking charge ticket of the kind that those workers out there who have a higher social standing than us politicians—traffic wardens—fix to windscreens, although even that is becoming less commonplace as enforcement has moved to automatic number plate recognition systems. I wonder how the Minister thinks that on a moving highway—the lower Thames crossing, the M6 toll or the Mersey tunnel—a ticket would ever find itself fixed with that immovable glue to someone’s windscreen in the first place.
The rest of the Government amendments are tidying. I wonder why the provisions were not thought through when the Bill was first published, but that is a debate we could have time and again.
We will come to this later in the Bill, but I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket about the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in at the moment, where in many parts of the country Royal Mail delays are extreme to the point that people receive things like penalty charge notices or medical appointment letters too late to meet the initial payment window or attend the appointment. That is a fact of life today. We all want to see it improve and get back to a postal system that we can all fully and totally rely on. I ask the Minister to reflect on that practical fact of life right now as he considers the points raised about the issuing of penalty charge notices.
Amendments 52, 59 and 71 are all applicable to clauses 27 and 28. Amendment 52 caps a penalty charge for failure to pay a toll at £100, amendment 59 would ensure that regulations about penalty charges were subject to the affirmative procedure, and amendment 71 would delay commencement until the Secretary of State has published the penalty charge policy.
I put to the Committee that a penalty charge must always be proportionate. When it comes to the use of a toll road, I do not see a good argument for not putting a clear £100 limit on a penalty charge notice on the face of the Bill. It could be increased over time through statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure, which we will come to in a moment, but not without the consent of the House. Of course, costs go up and there might be reasons to put it up in the future, but something as fundamental as certainty and proportionality when it comes to any penalty charge notice for the private citizen or business operator using a road should be a decision for Parliament.
I come to this debate with a clear view of the world. Save maybe one or two—a number of people that could be counted on the fingers of one hand—I do not think anybody out there ever deliberately sets out to avoid paying a £5, £6, £7, £8 or £10 toll to use the M6 toll or the Mersey tunnel, or will do in the case of the lower Thames crossing of the future. I just do not think we are in the realms of deliberate avoidance—certainly not with an ANPR enforcement regime where everybody knows there is nowhere to hide and number plates will have been captured.
Therefore, we are not talking about gross dishonesty or grand criminality; we are talking about normal people—any of us in this room—taking a journey and perhaps, for whatever reason, forgetting to pay. There are too many stresses of the day. The kids are screaming in the back, asking to go to every fast food joint they see at every service station advertised in large letters on the motorway. It slips your mind. It can happen to any of us. I therefore suggest a simple cap that gives people the confidence that, if they admit they have made a mistake and forgotten to pay, the penalty will not be an extortionate amount of money, but will instead, as amendment 52 suggests, have a ceiling of £100. This will affect many people on a daily basis, and I believe it should be proportionate.
Olly Glover
I have a question for the Conservatives on their amendment 52. They seem to have been on a rather rapid journey, having had a significant change of mind on the principle of caps since the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill Committee. Then, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton delivered a withering and scathing speech on one of our amendments, which proposed a cap on airport drop-off fees. She argued that it would create a moral hazard and encourage everyone to charge the maximum, yet their amendment 52 tries to set a cap at £100 for failure to pay a toll. Perhaps Conservative Members could address why they feel that is not a moral hazard.
Greg Smith
There is a fundamental difference between a fee to do something and a penalty for having forgotten to do something. I therefore think the two positions are entirely compatible. We have a very clear view on airport drop-off charges, but it is nothing to do with this Bill. They are a hindrance to airport users, but there is a fundamental difference between a charge to use a toll road or to drop someone off at an airport and a penalty for failing to do so.
Olly Glover
We could no doubt carry on and have an interesting discussion about economic theory and behavioural incentives, but I gently suggest that the principle is the same. Amendment 52 could encourage every private operator automatically to set their penalty charge at £100 rather than £10, £25 or £50, in the hope of making more money. I feel that the argument made by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is relevant to this, but I will leave it there and allow the Conservatives to address that further.
Justin Madders
I quite enjoyed the little sideshow there. It was entertaining.
I will deal first with the shadow Minister’s questions about Government amendment 13. Of course, we do not envisage that this is going to be a regular situation. It could cover, for example, a situation where a vehicle has been abandoned on a highway, but it is also for situations where there may be a persistent offender and further action is needed to enforce against them.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s amendment 52, which would introduce a £100 cap on penalty charges for non-payment of a toll. That is actually £20 lower than the current cap for a penalty charge notice issued at Dartford and on quite a lot of other road charging schemes, so it is very generous of him to give a discount.
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman is a generous man.
There are discounts available for early payment in most of these schemes anyway, which I think would speak to the impassioned plea he made about people who innocently contravene the regulations. It is important that such a change is made in regulations and not primary legislation for reasons I will go on to explain.
I do not believe fixing a cap in primary legislation would be the right approach. Penalty charges vary across the country depending on local conditions. For example, the Tyne tunnel has an initial penalty charge of £30 plus the toll, while for the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels the full charge is £180. The levels of PCNs and the structure of payments need to be appropriate and proportionate to the specific scheme. The Bill already allows penalty charges to be set through regulations, and that responsibility is to be delegated to the Office of Rail and Road acting in accordance with its statutory duties, which we have covered several times already. That of course gives it the flexibility to keep charges under review.
One of the problems with setting a fixed price cap in legislation is that it will erode in real terms with inflation. Hopefully, we will not see rising inflation over the coming years, but of course it is inevitable that, as time goes on, the value of the cap will decrease. For a good example of why fixing these caps in legislation is a bad idea, I refer the shadow Minister to the saga of the Swinford toll bridge, which I am sure he is familiar with: the 10p fee was set in 1760—I believe that is a little time before the hon. Member was actively engaged in politics—and because it was fixed in primary legislation, it has unfortunately not moved on because of the difficulty in changing it. That is a good example of why setting these figures in primary legislation is inappropriate.
Jim Dickson
While we are dealing with the administration of tolling and charges that result from non-payment, I want to mention that the operator that administers the Dart charge in Dartford changed in 2023, and during the transition there were numerous problems: people being charged for cars that were said to have used the crossing when they had not; people whose resident discounts disappeared from their accounts and who were then charged the full amount; and other problems with the way in which the administration was done. Could the Minister give some reassurance that such administrative errors around both charging and penalties, if they occur in the future, either on the lower Thames crossing or with the Dart charge, will be subject to the regulator’s intervention to ensure that the licence holder performed their responsibilities properly?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The situation under the Bill gives the regulator the power to deal with those kinds of instances. If licence conditions are not being complied with, which is the sort of situation to which he has referred, the Bill gives the regulator the power to intervene. That strengthens the position for people in those instances, although hopefully we will not have too many such instances.
Amendment 59 concerns the use of regulations. It is the case that using the negative procedure for this type of regulation follows an established precedent set in the Transport Act 2000. The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 were made under the procedure, and they are comparable with the regulations that we would expect to make under the Bill. They implement the detailed machinery needed to enable the charging authorities to impose and enforce civil penalties, including adjudication and, subject to safeguards, vehicle examination or search, immobilisation and removal.
The negative procedure provides an appropriate balance between parliamentary scrutiny and the flexibility required to ensure that the penalty charge regime remains effective, proportionate and capable of adapting to future operational requirements, without the need for further primary legislation. As explained in the delegated powers memorandum, published alongside the Bill, those regulations will set out the detailed enforcement framework to confer powers. As with many things that concern operational matters, this needs to remain flexible, hence why regulations were chosen as the mechanism for setting out the detail. I invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendment 59 to a vote.
Amendment 71 would prevent the Bill from coming into force until after the publication of a report on the policy regarding penalty charges. Unfortunately, this would also slow and frustrate the progress that we want to make on the lower Thames crossing. Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the very thing that this amendment asks for: a report before commencement.
It is already the case that Parliament will need to see details of the enforcement regime by way of the regulations made under clause 27 before any enforcement regime would come into effect. Blocking commencement of the rest of the Bill until a report had been issued would mean Parliament being asked to look at the same thing twice—once in a Government publication, and again when it scrutinises regulations. That is the kind of bureaucracy and slowing of progress that we want to avoid. Again, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendment 71 to a vote.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 27, page 19, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 8, in clause 27, page 19, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 9, in clause 27, page 19, line 38, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the imposition of a penalty charge must specify whether the charge is payable in addition to the toll in respect of which the charge is payable or instead of it.”
This amendment ensures that a requirement to pay a toll may remain in force (and therefore be recoverable as a civil debt under clause 24) even where a penalty charge is imposed in respect of the toll.
Amendment 10, in clause 27, page 19, line 38, at end insert—
“(6B) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification and enforcement of penalty charges.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment provides that regulations about the notification and enforcement of a penalty charge in respect of a toll are to be made by the Lord Chancellor (instead of by the Secretary of State).
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Non-payment of tolls and unauthorised charging of tolls
Amendments made: 11, in clause 28, page 20, line 17, after “toll” insert
“or of a penalty charge imposed in accordance with regulations under section 27(1)”
This amendment and amendment 12 widen the offence under clause 28(3) to cases where a person seeks to avoid payment of a penalty charge for non-payment of a toll.
Amendment 12, in clause 28, page 20, line 18, after “toll” insert
“or a penalty charge mentioned in paragraph (a)”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 11.
Amendment 13, in clause 28, page 20, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) A person commits an offence if the person removes a notice of a penalty charge imposed in accordance with regulations under section 27(1) which has been fixed to a road vehicle in accordance with regulations under section 27(6B) unless—
(a) the person is the registered keeper of the vehicle or a person using the vehicle with the registered keeper’s authority, or
(b) the person does so under the authority of the registered keeper or such a person or of the holder of a licence.
(4B) A person who commits an offence under subsection (4A) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment creates an offence where a person removes a notice of a penalty charge from a vehicle without lawful authority.
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Examination, entry, search and seizure
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 29, page 20, line 34, leave out “holder of a licence” and insert “police.”
This amendment would ensure that powers for examining a road vehicle rested with the police, rather than the licence holder.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 56, in clause 29, page 21, line 11, leave out “holder of a licence” and insert “police.”
This amendment would ensure that powers for entering a road vehicle rested with the police, rather than the licence holder.
Amendment 88, in clause 29, page 21, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not authorise a person to enter or search a road vehicle, or seize items therefrom, except—
(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace; or
(b) in the presence and under the direction of a police constable.”
This amendment aligns enforcement powers with standard civil debt procedure under Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 by ensuring that private toll operators or contracted enforcement agents cannot enter or search private vehicles without a judicial warrant issued by a magistrate or police oversight.
Amendment 57, in clause 29, page 21, line 31, leave out “holder of a licence” and insert “police.”
This amendment would ensure that powers for seizing anything from a road vehicle rested with the police, rather than the licence holder.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 60, in clause 100, page 66, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) regulations under section 29(1) (powers to examine a road vehicle).”
This amendment would ensure that regulations about examining a road vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 61, in clause 100, page 66, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) regulations under section 29(2) (powers to enter a road vehicle).”
This amendment would ensure that regulations about entering a road vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 62, in clause 100, page 66, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) regulations under section 29(5) (powers of seizure).”
This amendment would ensure that regulations about seizing evidence from a road vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 74, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert
“after the Secretary of State has published guidance about how the powers in section 29 and section 30 will be exercised by licence holders.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published guidance about the exercise of the powers in sections 29 and 30 of this Act.
Greg Smith
There are quite a few amendments in the group, but they largely speak to very similar themes. Amendment 55 would ensure that the powers for examining a road vehicle rest with the police, rather than any licence holder, and amendments 56 and 57 would do the same. Amendment 60 is slightly different but also comes back to a debate that we had in the previous group. It would ensure that regulations on examining a vehicle were subject to the affirmative procedure, so I will not repeat those arguments, and the same applies to amendments 61 and 62. Similar again to the previous group, amendment 74 would prevent commencement of the Act, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, until the Secretary of State has published guidance about the exercise of the powers in clauses 29 and 30.
Douglas Lumsden
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should remove the threat of equipment being required in vehicles for people to use tolls? We argued previously that ANPR would be the sensible way forward. I have heard today that ANPR will be used for fines, so why can it not be used for tolls? The Government should remove the requirement for equipment to be installed in vehicles, thereby removing the possibility of operators going into vehicles to check that the equipment is working.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend strengthens the argument considerably. It all comes back to this point of proportionality and fairness, and the system that most of us—certainly the vast majority of our constituents—thought we were operating under already, which such intrusive powers would drive a coach and horses through.
Alison Griffiths
To build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South just made, by putting such equipment into vehicles, we are exponentially increasing the cyber-threat and the attack surface for state actors to come in and paralyse not just our state but our communities.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, given the number of vehicles on our roads that have been so heavily subsidised by the Chinese state, I suspect that horse has already bolted.
If I may briefly speak to amendment 88 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, without stealing his thunder—
Greg Smith
The hon. Member seems happy with that, but I do not particularly wish to steal. Amendment 88 potentially offers a useful off-ramp for the Minister—and perhaps a halfway house in ensuring that the rights of the private citizen and the property owner are protected within this—by preventing enforcement officers from entering or searching private vehicles without either a judicial warrant issued by a magistrate or police oversight. That is commonplace for any other search or seizure in our country, with some notable, very extreme exceptions. Therefore, before the hon. Gentleman speaks to his amendment 88, I simply put on the record that the official Opposition has considerable sympathy with that approach and, if he presses it to a Division, we will support it.
I urge the Minister to seriously reflect on the implications from this part of the Bill for accepted norms and precedents within our society, and what enabling a licensee to enter, search and seize—as opposed to the established bodies that we already accept in this country have the legitimate authority, power and trust to do so—would mean for the entire social contract within the country.
Olly Glover
I will say a little about amendment 88, which the shadow Minister has started off, and then make some brief comments about the Conservatives’ amendments as a whole.
Amendment 88 would strengthen the safeguards around vehicle searches in the Bill by restricting private enforcement powers under clause 29 and requiring a judicial warrant issued by a magistrate, or a police presence, before entering or searching a vehicle. Under standard civil enforcement rules in schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, court bailiffs recovering civil debts cannot enter or search vehicles without a judicial warrant of control. In that context, clause 29 creates an extraordinary anomaly whereby private toll contractors would enjoy broader, unmonitored powers of search and entry than certificated court bailiffs. The clause, as drafted, looks to give huge, potentially unintended powers to private contractors. Users of these roads should be given more protection to prevent infringement of their civil liberties with little oversight. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider amendment 88.
Most of the Conservatives’ amendments in this group seem sensible, and we are inclined to support them, but I have a—“philosophical” is perhaps overly generous—vaguely political-philosophical question about them. A lot of their amendments tend to take two routes. The first is requiring various things to be published before the Bill comes into force. We understand that route and are inclined to support it; it is a similar argument to what we heard about the ORR code. The other route is requiring the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. The challenge with amendments that would require more use of the affirmative procedure is finding the right balance between holding a Government to account and not making virtually every change subject to a House of Commons vote.
At some point, could the shadow Minister say a little bit about the Conservatives’ thought process and criteria for what should be subject to the affirmative procedure? They are asking for a lot of things to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In principle, that could mean a very large number of things coming to the Commons for a Division after consideration by a Delegated Legislation Committee, but perhaps I have misunderstood and he can clarify.
Justin Madders
I will have a bit of banter and answer the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s question about the Conservative approach to delegated legislation. He need only look at their 14 years in power to see that they were very fond of the negative procedure and delegated legislation.
Justin Madders
Well, we can rehearse that argument, but I am delighted that the shadow Minister has found a new interest in championing the need for the role of Parliament, and I assure him that his fears are misplaced.
I will turn to amendments 55 to 57 tabled by the shadow Minister. He has raised the spectre of individuals prodding around in private property and has, rightly, asked what safeguards there will be. It might be helpful if I explain that the broad framework in this Bill follows the approach of the Transport Act 2000, which has detailed safeguards that have been set out in regulations. I believe that those regulations are the right place to specify how these powers may be exercised and the protections that must accompany them.
I need to be clear about what the regulations are and are not. They do not allow for any person to be authorised to pull over vehicles on a highway, and they do not enable any person to interfere with a vehicle on private property. The powers are about enabling the licence holder to determine whether tolling conditions have been complied with or an offence has occurred. They will be conferred only if strictly necessary, and in the case of entry into a vehicle or seizure of evidence, I state quite happily on the record that I envisage a role for a constable in those circumstances.
The question is therefore not whether safeguards are needed, because I think we agree on that, but how best to provide them. We should also make sure that the licence holder has the tools they need to safeguard their significant investment from nefarious characters. The shadow Minister referred to pressures on the police; I wonder whether his shadow Home Office colleagues have considered the impact his amendment would have for resource burden on the police. I recognise his concern, but police should not be enforcing debts owed to private operators.
Enforcement powers should remain with the licence holder, with police oversight to ensure that those powers are not used in an intrusive manner. I can confirm that our intention is to make regulations to require the powers of entry and seizure to be exercised only in the presence of a constable. I favour setting out detailed arrangements in regulations to make sure that the right safeguards are attributed to the right place with the correct detail, rather than prescribing a blunt tool in the Bill. Hopefully that gives the shadow Minister some assurance.
I now turn to amendment 88. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for his contribution. Again, I think that he and I agree on the need for proper safeguards for the existence of enforcement powers, but I believe that the approach he suggests follows the wrong precedent and would result in an overly burdensome and ineffective enforcement process. The precedent he cites relates to the enforcement of court orders designed for the recovery of charges, but clause 29 is about ascertaining whether an offence has occurred in the first place. Our view is that it would be inappropriate to seek a judicial warrant before it has been determined whether an offence has been committed.
On that basis, it is right that we follow the precedent set out in the Transport Act 2000, but the hon. Member again has my assurance that regulations made under this power will have the significant safeguards he has described. I agree that it would be unacceptable to give unfettered rights to private operators to enter the vehicles without sufficient oversight, so I invite him not to press the amendment.
Douglas Lumsden
Does the Minister agree that the threat of entering vehicles and everything else exists only because of the threat of people being required to install equipment in their cars to use the toll roads, and that if he just kept it simple and used ANPR, for example, that threat would go away?
Justin Madders
I think the hon. Member misunderstands the purpose of the clause. This not about requiring equipment to be put into particular vehicles. I will describe what clause 29 will actually do. It will give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to provide limited enforcement powers in relation to vehicles. Those can be used to check whether required documents are displayed and whether tolling equipment is fitted and working properly—that is to say, that it has not been interfered with in a manner that might trigger the offences outlined in clause 28.
Regulations may also allow entry into a vehicle where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that equipment has been deliberately interfered with or that a false document is being used to avoid paying a toll or being identified. This may allow items to be seized and kept as evidence of an offence under clause 28. These powers will be subject to clear limits. Examination of or entry into a vehicle will be authorised only while a vehicle is on the highway. Intentionally obstructing someone lawfully exercising a power of entry will be an offence, and could be subject to a fine or imprisonment. Clause 29 will therefore provide the tools needed to investigate deliberate toll evasion, with the detail and safeguards set through regulations. I commend it to the Committee.
I turn to amendments 61 and 62, tabled by the shadow Minister. As explained in a delegated powers memorandum published alongside the Bill, these regulations will set out the details of the enforcement framework to confer powers. As with many things that concern operational matters, there is a need to remain flexible, hence why regulations were chosen as the mechanism for setting out the detail. The negative procedure for this type of regulation follows the precedent set in the Transport Act 2000. The negative procedure provides an appropriate balance between parliamentary scrutiny and the flexibility required to ensure that the penalty charge regime remains effective, proportionate and capable of adapting to future operational requirements without the need for further primary legislation. I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.
On amendment 74, we have had this debate on a number of occasions already. We believe that it is an unnecessary amendment that would have the effect of frustrating Parliament and slowing down delivery of projects under the regulated asset base model. Clause 29 will already allow the Secretary of State to make regulations about the very thing that this amendment asks for. Before commencement, this amendment would lead to Parliament being asked to look at the same thing twice: once as a Government publication and again when regulations were published. We believe that that is an unnecessary bureaucratic approach, and we cannot support it.
Greg Smith
I really do not want a long tit-for-tat session between me and the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Greg Smith
That is for another time. For the representative of a party that literally has the word “Democrats” in its name to make an argument against this House following the affirmative procedure when it comes to setting regulations and for finding a “balance” that just goes with the negative procedure a number of times is really quite hard to stomach. We know that with the demise of the “Orange Book” tribe in that party, they are no longer at least classically liberal; now, it turns out that they are also arguing against democracy. Trading Standards may well be called in when it comes to the titling of the third party.
Olly Glover
How generous of the shadow Minister to give way. He is usually quite a mature, thoughtful fellow—I put it to him that he might be being slightly juvenile in his comments now. He will know full well that my remarks earlier were not criticising his amendments; they were asking for his thoughts on the principles he was using in relation to use of the affirmative procedure. To take his argument to the extreme, we could have literally everything subject to the affirmative procedure. Without doubt, we would then spend our entire life having Divisions in the House of Commons, which we all love, but there is a balance. As for changes to the nature of party names, I suggest to him that abandoning the commitment to climate change and human rights is not very conservative either.
Greg Smith
To get back to the amendment and the use of the affirmative procedure, my considered view is that our constituents sent us here to make such decisions. If we are honest about it, the only direct power that any of us actually has as a Member of Parliament is when the Division bell goes or the Chair signals a Division in Committee, and we choose whether to vote aye or no, or not to cast a vote. That is incumbent on us. Whenever we debate something that will affect any of our constituents—in this case, intrusion into their private vehicles—I think that they would expect us not just to talk about it, but to put our vote to the side of the argument that we feel best represents their interests. In direct answer to the question of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, those are my thoughts. Where our constituents are affected, they expect us to have stood up for them, to have argued what we consider to be the best outcome that protects them and enables them to prosper in life, and to put our vote where we think it best serves.
I heard the arguments that the Minister put back. As I have said on other groupings, we do not want to frustrate the core aims and principles of the Bill; we do want to see the lower Thames crossing built and people able to use it, but that does not mean a blank cheque for every provision in the Bill. Something as fundamental to private property rights as the intrusion into a private car does, I think, warrant that additional scrutiny.
I accept that a number of amendments in the grouping fundamentally try to do the same thing, and I can see the numbers in the Committee this afternoon. Therefore, if it helps, Mr Wishart, as we move towards the end of the debate on the grouping, I am happy to confirm that we will test the principle with the lead, amendment 55, but we will be content to withdraw the others on the inclusion of limiting the power to just the police. We will test the core principle once, but I assure the Committee that the Opposition will return to the issue on Report. We will also test the principle in amendment 61 on the affirmative procedure, but I will be content not to press the others in my name.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members please to switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We will consider first the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that those matters can be taken formally, without debate. TABLE Date Time Witness Thursday 12 November Until no later than 12.05pm Building Safety Regulator Homes England Local Government Association Thursday 12 November Until no later than 12.40pm National Fire Chiefs Council London Fire Brigade Thursday 12 November Until no later than 1.00pm Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester Thursday 12 November Until no later than 2.35pm The Property Institute National Housing Federation Thursday 12 November Until no later than 3.00pm End Our Cladding Scandal Thursday 12 November Until no later than 3.30pm Britain Remade Centre for Policy Studies Thursday 12 November Until no later than 3.50pm Vistry Thursday 12 November Until no later than 4.20pm Ian Abley, Steve Day Thursday 12 November Until no later than 4.40pm Dame Judith Hackitt Thursday 12 November Until no later than 5.00pm DCCH Experts LLP Thursday 12 November Until no later than 5.20pm Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 12
November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 November;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 November;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 November;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 December;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 December;
(h) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 December;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 34; Schedule 1; Clauses 35 to 45; Schedule 2; Clauses 46 to 102; Schedule 3; Clauses 103 to 116; New Clauses; New Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 8 December.—(Florence Eshalomi.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Florence Eshalomi.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Florence Eshalomi.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
As we have London Fire Brigade witnesses, I declare that my partner works for it, in fire safety.
Sagal Abdi-Wali (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I declare that I am still a councillor in a local authority.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I declare that the headquarters of the London Fire Brigade are in my constituency and that I meet the fire commissioner.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a volunteer director of the St Austell community land trust.
The Chair
If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s line of questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.
Examination of Witnesses
Lord Roe, Charlie Pugsley, Helen Fisher and Mark Norris gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Building Safety Regulator, Homes England and the Local Government Association. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed, and for the purposes of the witnesses, that means that this session will end at 12.05 pm. I ask each of the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.
Charlie Pugsley: Good morning. I am Charlie Pugsley, acting chief exec of the Building Safety Regulator.
Lord Roe: Good morning. I am Andy Roe, chair of the Building Safety Regulator.
Helen Fisher: Good morning. I am Helen Fisher, the director of the cladding safety scheme and interim measures alarm fund at Homes England.
Mark Norris: I am Mark Norris from the Local Government Association.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Q
Lord Roe: It is nice to see you. The Bill gives powers to a series of regulators, which is useful. The first thing I want to say is that we welcome the Bill as another tool in our arsenal. It is not a panacea, but it will certainly be useful with the most recalcitrant actors in this landscape. I think, between us, we are clear how we operate. We are in constant dialogue—multiple meetings a week—with the likes of Homes England, local authorities, the London Fire Brigade and other fire services, and there is very good co-ordination.
There is no single hierarchy that necessarily fits all circumstances. My experience of having been a regulator in this space for a very long time is that you choose the most appropriate regulator set against the circumstances. You need to do that early in any potential enforcement process. It normally comes through a memorandum of understanding in the context of those individual circumstances. To set a sort of hierarchy within this would potentially be a mistake.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Lord Roe: Because remediation itself is a complex issue. Without wanting to go into infinite detail, the reality is that there is normally a number of different routes to enforcement on a dangerous building, and it is not necessarily through this piece of legislation. I want to be clear: this is one tool in the arsenal. If we were presented with a problem building or entity organisation, the first thing we would do is get on to the other regulating and enforcing organisations and decide what the best route of enforcement is. It might not be this Bill. It could be the Housing Act. It could be the fire safety order. The point is that determining a hierarchy for remediation is potentially a mistake. I would rather we operate as we do, which is in clear collaboration and set out in an MOU. I do not know if there is anything you would add to that in terms of practical reality, Charlie.
Charlie Pugsley: Normally, for example, the Building Safety Regulator would be expected to take the lead on high-rise buildings, but we have one case currently that we are working with the London Fire Brigade on, and we are both looking at enforcement. If the fire brigade is six months ahead—you are legally not allowed to duplicate—it is in the public interest and the interest of efficiency for the fire brigade to make that decision. If that is the case, so be it—they should decide, to get the enforcement in the most timely and effective way.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Lord Roe: It gives us more powers to tackle the worst actors in the remediation landscape. It gives us the additional ability to call those people in and force them to make progress. That is the advantage of this legislation.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Lord Roe: I am conscious of time, but it comes in all shapes and forms. It could be reluctance to devote the money required to an expensive specialist contracting model to get the work done, so you can hold things up at contract. It could be putting forward really poor, under-resourced design proposals. There are multiple different ways you can hold this process up. To be fair, lots of things make operating in this landscape complicated and hard. Perhaps I will come back to that as a principal answer: this is a good tool. It will not solve remediation, but that is not what it is intended for. A lot of stuff on the delivery side has to be improved, whether it is inside the regulator or the other agencies or out in industry. That will probably give us the greatest gain, but this is a very useful tool where people are not complying.
With the greatest respect, I hope the witnesses this afternoon bring up-to-date evidence. We have gone from a 30% approval rate and a median determination time on approvals into the gateway 2 system of over a year, which was completely unacceptable. Charlie and I were charged with trying to shift that. We publish data transparently every single month. We are now at a 92% rolling approval rate. We got the median determination time down to something in the region of 20 weeks, and we will reduce it further. I personally am not experiencing huge levels of non-compliance, to be fair to the industry. They have worked hard to improve the standard of applications and move things on, but this is a very difficult space to operate in—and where there are bad actors, this will be a good tool.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Q
Mark Norris: Like the building safety regulator, the LGA welcomes the Bill. It is another tool in the toolbox. As MHCLG’s statistics already show, local authorities are out there doing enforcement now and have been for a number of years. Some 940 buildings are being inspected by councils under the Housing Act to take enforcement actions against some of the bad actors that Lord Roe referred to, supported by the Joint Inspection Team, which the Department funds the LGA to support. They have completed over 200 inspections so far.
The issue for us, which Lord Roe touched on, is capacity and resources to do that. Environmental health officers are in short supply—there is not a ready tree on which they grow to recruit them from. In terms of being able to do additional work, we already know that environmental health officers have a range of additional responsibilities. Recent legislation, including the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the social housing Act from 2023, includes a range of additional duties on local housing authorities within the housing space. Resourcing capacity in environmental health will be needed going forward to support councils in being able to do that work. We are fully up for the task, but need the resources and capacity to do that alongside everything else we are being asked to do, as you pointed out.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Mark Norris: I think they will notice a material improvement from this legislation. The experience of the Joint Inspection Team is that you might know what is wrong with the building and what needs to be fixed, but progressing things through first-tier tribunals to get the ruling that that is what the building owner or responsible entity needs to do takes time. Giving us something that places a duty on responsible entities to fix the building—that says very categorically, “This is what you have to do”—will help to speed that process up. But you are right: councils will need resources and capacity in addition to that to help them make the most of the legislation and the tools available in it.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Q
Lord Roe: Those are two different things. I would not want to confuse necessary operational improvement with legislation to deal with bad actors. What you are talking about there is our responsibility to appropriately take a decision on what is sometimes a very complex situation, with thousands of pages to each application, while also operating in the context of a national lack of suitably skilled people to do facade engineering—also a particular point of risk. All I can do is point to the evidence, which shows that there was an unacceptable situation a year and a half ago when we came in: if you were one of those residents and had an application submitted into our system, you could wait up to a year or more. That was not okay and I have apologised for it repeatedly in other Committees.
We were charged to turn that around. I would argue—I have got to say this in defence of the team responsible—that we have done that, because we are now at 92% approval and with 20-week determination times. That will come down further, although maybe not by a lot—this is not about poor bureaucracy or a lack of emails or care anymore; it is about the engineering complexity of getting a building safe that has been built really badly.
The message to your constituents is first that we are super-available. Charlie and I get hundreds of emails into the inbox every week from people who often have rightful challenge—or sometimes do not. They will get a reply and response and, where necessary, we will unpick individual cases from the top of the BSR hierarchy down.
The point is that we can evidence the operational improvement. It is real and it is there in the figures. It is also there in the experience of both industry and many residents. We meet with all the campaigning groups almost weekly to gather intelligence, try and pick off poor actors and recognise where we are doing wrong and where there needs to be improvement in the system. I know, though, that is not going to be a comfort to people who are still trapped inside those blocks and who are under tremendous pressure. All I can tell them—I am sure many of them will be watching—is that we will be doing everything in our power to improve our system and force recalcitrant actors to do better. However, it is a complex problem that has been three decades-plus in the making.
Charlie Pugsley: One thing in the Bill is a duty to bring forward the assessment; that is something that we found in our remediation enforcement unit and have chased up. We work closely with Homes England and other partners. If that duty helps drive that forward, one part of the bigger puzzle will have been progressed and can help. But as Lord Roe says, there is no silver bullet; this is about a collective endeavour.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
Lord Roe: It is not just the duties inherent within the Bill; it is the skilled contractors on the other side of it. The answer is no. This problem was built over decades, across successive Governments of all colours who neglected to invest in construction skills. This is not a political point, but the reality is that there is a very significant national endeavour to correct that, led at Secretary of State level. However, it will take time to reverse. There is a very real problem, and this is part of the complexity.
The Bill is a good tool for enforcement, which we will use, but to be fair to applicants, if you cannot get a specialist scaffolder because none is available in your area, or you cannot find the right facade engineer, we need to be pragmatic about how we chase your application. Otherwise, we will potentially force applicants to engage with poor or unskilled contractors. There are hidden dangers within all of this. If I am honest, all of us are trying to fix the plane on the runway because this mess was created over a number of decades.
The skill shortage is quite profound on both the industry side and for us. We pay very good rates; we are a costs-recovered agency. We employ the same private engineers that the applicants will be trying to employ as well, because there is a small pool of specialists within this field. There is currently a lot of investment to build that capacity, but you do not train these people in one year—it is not like that.
My point is that this Bill is great, genuinely, and we will use it selectively against people where it is appropriate to do so. Before someone else gets to it, I should say that that is unlikely to be resident managed entities, because that would be punching down. That is not okay and we are well aware of that, but there is a much bigger operational problem, which we are all charged with helping to solve, along with the industry, because we will not solve the problem without it.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Lord Roe: I am not saying they should do more. I am well aware of the work being done within the Construction Skills Mission Board. There is a huge endeavour. It is a massive joint industry piece as well. There is really good co-operation from industry and Government together, but they are trying to reverse-engineer a problem that was decades in the—[Interruption.] You might as well say that, Charlie—he is writing me notes. A good example would be the RBIs.
Charlie Pugsley: It is not for us to comment on behalf of the Government, but we are aware that funding has gone into registered building inspectors, for example, from the Government.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Lord Roe: No; I do not think the two things are the same. I think they are doing enough, but sometimes—I mean this with the greatest respect—I sit in front of Committees that want to see reversed in one or two years a problem that was decades in the making. Some of these people can take up to a decade to train. We are talking about very specialist work, particularly in the context of external remediation and façade engineering. These are some of the most experienced and qualified people in the engineering world. You cannot just invent them. It is a bit like growing the number of environmental health inspectors—these are really specialist.
There is £625 million inside the Construction Skills Mission Board, I think. To be fair, the previous Government had started a lot on this as well and I want to recognise that; the previous Administration, through Michael Gove, had started to do a lot of things with this, but it takes a long time to resolve. All the time the housing economy is difficult, by the way, it has an impact on available skills and the people who are going to get employed. So we are trying to get ourselves out of a cycle.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Q
I have in my constituency a case that I think is a useful test case for the Bill. Barratt Redrow built a building; cladding was an issue but, in looking at that, all sorts of other issues about the whole structure of the building were uncovered. My constituents have been decanted for three years and they are asked to go back next week on the basis of a report by the developers, Barratt Redrow, who in their mind caused all those problems. My constituents want independent scrutiny of that. They want independently to know that, for example, the concrete that it has been made with, which is in question, is the right one. Are they safe to go back? Does the Bill allow for that? Where do residents go when they are being asked to return, or during a process of remediation, for that independent aspect of it? Do you think that is strong enough, or could more be done about the quality and consistency of assessments?
Helen Fisher: I will start with the same message that you heard from the other panel members: Homes England supports the introduction of more tools to ensure that there are things that can be done against those who are not doing what needs to be done.
In response to the question about independent scrutiny, the Bill is introducing tools to ensure that fire risk appraisals of the external wall are put on to a level where they will all have independent peer review. Our experience in Homes England is that when we put the cladding safety scheme together, we listened to residents and leaseholders; we worked extensively with End Our Cladding Scandal and others, and the message—this is the question that you are asking—came out very clearly from them that, over the decade since Grenfell, trust has broken down significantly between developers, building owners and managing agents. We placed the design of that programme significantly in the middle of that to make sure that any independent investigation that had been done by any party was brought into Homes England and put through panel engagement that was independently qualified in order to peer-review, challenge and ensure.
There are policy aspects that are difficult, such as proportionality; PAS 9980 itself has subjectivity to it, and we know, with our engineers and our panels, that there is a degree of growth there over the last two or three years in the programme. Scrutiny exists in the cladding safety scheme. I think we need to bottle that, and this Bill moves towards that—making sure of independent auditing of key investigation documents, such as a fire risk appraisal of an external wall, is having that form of scrutiny.
That is crucial for residents and leaseholders, so that they can have confidence in the documentation that is delivered by individuals and they do not have to concern themselves about who the original instructor of the documents is—whether it is a developer, a freeholder or a right-to-manage company. We have dealt with both ends of that spectrum from betterment and wanting the work to go further than expected, to the other end, where the position is trying to do the least amount of work as is tolerable.
I have a slightly different problem from Andy and Charlie, as we deal with this at every height. The Building Safety Regulator covers buildings of 18 metres-plus, and then there are high-rise buildings. The majority of 11 to 18-metre buildings now coming through are right-to-manage or small entities, so there is a need for us to operationally adapt to that to ensure we are giving support and helping with independent scrutiny, not just to ensure we hold the market to account, but to ensure support for right-to-manage companies so that they can take independent audit as assurance that that work is right for them.
Lord Roe: Could I just add something to provide a bit of assurance, since I imagine that some of your constituents will be watching? Obviously, if an HRB is above the threshold of 18 metres, it will come through our gateway process, which I know is onerous, but is onerous for a reason. We are going to look at the dead load of the façade engineering. We then look at it in the in-build phase as well, so we are going to get eyes on what they are doing—it is like building your extension—and then we sign it off. That is the point of enhanced building control, but it carries some complexity and it takes time.
On the flipside, although it does not solve some of the other problems around the split between internal and external defects, every high-rise building requires a building assessment certificate. That has been in law since 2024. Again, it was not communicated properly when the regulator was set up—we are not going to defend that—but we have done an enormous amount of communication since to educate and put guidance out there. That will mean that it has to come into our system on the basis of an assessment. We will look at the quality of that assessment in determining whether the evidence coming to us is accurate.
The safeguards are there in the legislation. The problem is that if you are living in one of these blocks, it is complex, it is long, it can be costly and there is a shortage of the specialists you need to deal with stuff. It is mind-blowing for professionals in the space who have been doing it for years—you do not have a hope as a resident management company director. I have the utmost sympathy for them.
The challenge to us is less about the Bill. I give credit to Helen; we see each other weekly and meet the campaign groups together. We are trying to get intelligence to improve across our shared systems. It is all about our operational improvement at the other end to bring internal and external defects together. Even if the funding does not match, can we do better inside our organisation to put it in the same team, so that you look at the building at one time? We are not there yet. We are on a pretty radical journey of transformation inside the regulator. A lot of stuff is a lot better, but there is more to do.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Mark Norris: Shall I go first and have a quick stab at that? As you know, there are complex problems with finding out and addressing ownership of buildings. As Lord Roe said, there are bad actors who deliberately try to obfuscate ownership to make it more difficult for people to enforce against them. Certainly, the experience that local authorities have had when using the Housing Act 1988 is that that is a problem.
The provisions in the Bill are at least trying to move us into a position where it is harder for people to hide behind legal entities and not take responsibility for what they should be doing. That is a stronger provision that enables regulators to take action to identify who the right people are. It is really helpful. Will it entirely solve every single problem? No, it probably will not. There will continue to be bad actors who do the best they can to hide behind something, but this is a good step in the right direction and gives us additional tools to take the action that we want to take against the people who really are responsible.
Lord Roe: May I add one thing? It goes back to Gareth Bacon’s question, which is a good question, about the hierarchy of regulation. An extension of that is, “Who do you enforce against?”, in terms of what Mark said. It is important for regulators to talk to each other about hierarchy, who owns it and what you are going to do in the detail across different bits of legislation, but you need to make sure you are not enforcing against people who do not hold power in the system, particularly the resident management companies. There might be some rogue RMCs out there where you might need to do it, but I have not yet come across that situation.
I need people out there to hear that, certainly from our perspective, this measure would be a tool of absolute last resort against those entities, because most often they do not have the power even to resolve their own issues. I want to be really clear about that, because I know there is a heightened level of anxiety about what the Bill might do to those people, as if we are being forced as regulators into doing things to RMCs. We are not. We have choices as regulators. This is a great tool for some of the people you identify. Personally, I do not think it is designed to punch down at RMCs. I think it would be completely inappropriate. We would do everything else in our power to help resolve the situation with them before you got anywhere close to this.
The Chair
We have less than five minutes left, so I am afraid some colleagues will be disappointed.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Q
Lord Roe: Mark, Charlie and I dealt with this one, so I am going to volunteer Charlie, who is a bit of a victim really, while you think about it.
Charlie Pugsley: If it is the building in Dagenham, we have engaged consistently with residents since then. We are also working closely with London Fire Brigade. I have to be careful, even in Committee, not to talk about things that could prejudice a live investigation. One of the things we have heard loud and clear is about the knock-on impact of the case, where the entity has become dissolved and its estate is in effect taking money from the people who have already suffered the loss of their properties. That is one of the things that we are feeding back to the Department and other regulators. Both we and London Fire Brigade are still working on that. But we are both very much sighted on—this comes back to Lord Roe’s point that you need to approach enforcement with intelligence—in this case, what do we do if the only impact further impacts on residents?
Helen Fisher: May I add to that? Lord Roe made this point earlier. I think we all welcome the Bill. The behavioural point is an important one, and there are a couple of things on that. This is not just about remediation; it is about safety for residents and leaseholders while we get to their buildings, and there are thousands of buildings. We are starting to work with the social sector and the private sector to ensure that transparency is there. One of my goals is making sure that all residents and leaseholders understand when, and understand that they are going to be safe in the interim.
On the behaviour, it is not just about doing everything in your power to step through a design and remediation programme, which is undoubtedly incredibly complex. It is also about how you as a building owner are compliant with resident and leaseholder safety while you wait for key remediation works to go ahead. There is a lot more to do in that space.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Q
Lord Roe: The quick answer is that some of it helps, but my message—perhaps this is a good point to summarise from our point of view—is that there is a culture and leadership piece that needs to be understood in industry. We have watched industry really up its game over the past year and a half, so this is not a chance to bash them up, because I think people have worked very hard, but we still see appalling communication at an operational level from operational teams.
Even when the chief exec is leading the strategic entity well—we are talking about some large developers here—something happens at the operational level and they treat residents with disdain. There is no way you can enforce your way out of that, to be honest. We need the industry to take responsibility—even if it is bad news, please can you just communicate with your residents in a way that puts them, as a human, at the centre? Time and time again, that is where it starts to go wrong.
Charlie Pugsley: This is where all of us on the panel will communicate directly with those entities. We will put it in writing, even where it is outside the duty of resident communication, for example, and we will be really clear about what we expect.
Lord Roe: Again, the offer here is that if you have individual examples where the weight of the regulator will help, we are in with chief execs of the big and small developers all the time. We frequently have conversations in which we ask them to up their game, even if we cannot enforce it.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. We will now change to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Dan Daly, Penny Pender and Spencer Sutcliff gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the National Fire Chiefs Council and Jonathan Smith, the commissioner of the London Fire Brigade. For this session, we have until 12.40 pm. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Dan Daly: My name is Dan Daly, and I am the director of service delivery improvement at the National Fire Chiefs Council.
Penny Pender: My name is Penny Pender. I am the head of policy at the National Fire Chiefs Council.
Spencer Sutcliff: I am Spencer Sutcliff, the deputy commissioner at the London Fire Brigade, representing Jonathan Smith, the commissioner.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dan Daly: Currently, the answer would be no. For the work that has been ongoing, there have been some improvements to the monitoring of people who are undertaking risk assessments. Some work ahead—important work—is on the competency and regulating the role of the fire risk assessor. At the moment, more work is being undertaken by fire risk assessors, and that has been monitored. There is probably an overexaggeration of the levels of competency by individuals. Looking at the membership of professional bodies, alongside that competency route, is one of the ways to address the current shortfall. I admire the ambition in the Bill; it is important that we put high expectations on the delivery and remediation of buildings, but a number of aspects—one is the competency of fire risk assessors and access to them—are the Achilles heel of that ambition for the timeframe.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dan Daly: It is a fair challenge. As I say, personally, I quite like the idea of pushing or challenging timetables. Having said that, a number of the unresolved issues in the Bill we were talking about three years ago probably, and they remain unresolved. There is a pace to delivering the Bill and putting it in place where I think there are some weaknesses, and where those challenges are still present.
One of the aspects where we will be challenged is, to an extent, the pressing timeline to have a Bill in place, because it has been a long time coming. What we are seeing behind some of that is that it then pushes some real pressure on to other regulators, particularly around how we will work together under a collaboration and who takes the lead, which was part of the questions to the last panel. Those pressures are highly challenging, and it might have been better to have resolved them more satisfactorily before the Bill was launched.
James Asser
Q
We cannot answer what is actually wrong with the building, but everything stems from that in terms of whether we need to be clearing people out. In the first instance, everyone phoned the fire brigade, because they thought, “Hey, it’s not safe,” but it sits outside the fire brigade’s powers because it is not a fire issue; it is a structural one. In terms of your powers and where powers lie, where those responsible fail to take building safety seriously or to act when they should, what differences would clearer duties and stronger consequences make? Would additional powers in your remit be helpful in achieving that?
Dan Daly: As the previous panel talked about, the Bill provides a number of tools to a number of different regulators, and that is helpful and should be applauded. In terms of some of the unresolved questions and historical challenges that Lord Roe was talking about, the Bill will struggle to address some of the structural issues, and we will still find ourselves with the issue of who takes the lead in some circumstances. Because the issue falls back to one of public safety, fire and rescue services are often the agency that will stay around, even when we do not necessarily have an ability to affect the outcome, particularly when it comes to structural issues and issues of construction competence down the line. We will be there predominately to support residents and to try to protect their safety.
I am not sure whether it tackles the historical issues. They are some of the unresolved elements of competency throughout the system that we identified and were talking about three or even four years ago, when the Bill was first mooted. I am not sure whether it does enough to tackle those, but it does give some responsibility to regulators elsewhere, which does add value.
Spencer Sutcliff: The example in your constituency is somewhat symbolic of the wider building construction issues over the last few years. I have great sympathy for the impacted residents; it is a terrible situation for them. Dan Daly is correct that the London Fire Brigade has been drawn into this issue despite not having the powers, as it stands, to resolve it—although we naturally have responsibilities around emergency response and other contingency arrangements.
We welcome the Bill, and the work that we will be done to clarify the enforcing responsibilities of each responsible agency will be welcomed—we are a long way through that as it stands anyway, with various protocols and long-standing work and arrangements—but it will not necessarily resolve this particular issue, and I suspect that other unique challenges will show themselves over the years, like this one has more recently.
The Chair
Mr Asser, you want to repeat the declaration you made at the start of proceedings.
James Asser
Yes. I am sorry; I should have done that beforehand. My partner works for the London Fire Brigade in fire safety issues.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Penny Pender: That is a really good question. It depends on what you want to be achieved through the Bill. From the point of view of controlling the risk of fire spread on external walls—that fire safety point of view—we are satisfied that the PAS does what it needs to do. Obviously, it does not deal with how the building should have been constructed to begin with or those wider issues, so if that is something that people are looking for it to resolve, they will remain frustrated. Even though we are happy that it would deal with those critical life-safety issues, you are right to highlight that some of the wider issues, such as insurance, would not be addressed through that means.
Spencer Sutcliff: We think that PAS 9980 is an appropriate assessment, and we would not want, necessarily, to bring in further methodologies that could confuse the arrangement or provide further inconsistencies. It goes back to the root cause, which the previous panel touched on a number of times: the competency of the assessor. When you are using an assessment that always has an element of subjectivity, you are entirely reliant on the competence of the assessor, and we have seen various examples of different assessors coming to different conclusions using that assessment. There is some ongoing concern.
We really welcome and would like to see more of the auditing arrangements for Homes England. Certainly in the initial stages, I would like to see Homes England audit those premises that have been deemed “tolerable” and not just look at the ones that are effectively failing the assessment, because there needs to be confidence that those assessments are done in a consistent manner. We are back, a little bit, to the root cause around who is doing the assessments in the first place.
Penny Pender: If I might build on that, as Spencer says, no matter what methodology you select, if the people using that methodology do not have the right competencies to begin with, you will come across those issues. For the time being, we need that methodology. It is what we have available to us, so changing it at this point might not be helpful. I am aware that the PAS has been updated recently to make it clear that you have to have regard to and think about the wider risks in the building, so it should ultimately lead to those risks being identified. It is just a challenge for people, when they do identify them, how to address them.
Spencer Sutcliff: There is extensive work ongoing around the regulation of those assessors, and we have standards in place. We do not yet have formal regulation of who is permitted to carry out those assessments; that is a work in progress, and we really encourage that the pace of that work is maintained and that it is brought in as soon as possible.
Fleur Anderson
Q
Do you think that the Bill’s co-operation framework will help? The LFB, the borough council, the local management committee and the developer are all involved in conversations, but who can the residents go to for that independent assessment to be assured that the building is safe? Is there anything more that can be done in the Bill to help in that situation?
Spencer Sutcliff: I think the Bill provides a sufficient framework for the work to be done to clarify the exact position around the responsibilities of each of the enforcing entities. It is not unusual at all for the London Fire Brigade to have protocols and memorandums of understanding with different enforcing authorities. For example, we have a long-standing MOU in London with the local authority around houses in multiple occupation, because we both have enforcement powers under the fire safety order and the Housing Act. It is right and proper that we distinguish the type of building, the type of occupancy and who is the lead enforcing authority. To act at the same time is not good practice; it creates inconsistency and would not be correct.
I think the framework proposed in the Bill is sufficient. We have already drafted an enforcement protocol with the Bill in mind, so the timescale proposed in the Bill to set out that framework is suitable and can be met.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q
In terms of the fire safety of buildings, are you content that the Bill, as currently structured, is sufficiently robust to achieve the safety inspections and sign-off that will be required in the future?
Dan Daly: One thing we have been really clear about ever since the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire is that a whole-system approach is required to ensure building safety. Dame Judith quite rightly identified the need for the whole regime to be looked at. There are still elements within that—they have been referenced today—around competency, which is still an issue. There are the general skills requirements both across the construction sector and within fire risk assessors; we talked about fire engineering skills and those with the technical ability to address some of the risks that we now face, particularly when dealing with a historical property.
Bob Blackman
Q
Dan Daly: It comes down not just to competency; when I talk about competency, I talk about ethical behaviours and how that is controlled through membership bodies and sign-out. I do not think it is an ideal situation. It is certainly a situation that was addressed by some of Dame Judith Hackitt’s comments in that original review.
On the point about a whole-system approach, while the Bill talks about remediation and provides some useful tools, it does not provide the complete answer, because there are historical defects in fire safety that are internal, not just about the external wall of the building. We still find challenges in respect of how those are addressed.
We talked earlier about the suitability of the PAS. The PAS does allow for some weighing up of other features within the building, in terms of how the risk is mitigated. That is a step forward from the combined advice note, which was pretty all-in or all-out and did not allow for some of that balance. But we have issues that are still sitting within the buildings, and there are a number of things we could be doing better and stronger to ensure that buildings are safe overall and to build the confidence of residents, which we talked about earlier.
Bob Blackman
Q
Dan Daly: To your latter point, it is the role of the Building Safety Regulator to make sure that these things are built correctly from this point on. The last panel talked about the work in that regard.
I think the responsibilities for remediation are clear in the Bill, which assigns responsibility through the “polluter pays” principle, so it is much clearer who is responsible for repairing buildings. Our ability to enforce that would be improved if some of the protocols were agreed around who collaborates and who leads. I note the work in the LFB around writing protocol at the moment, but elsewhere in the country there are some really ambitious and difficult timeframes; if we press ahead as we are now, something in the region of 157 individual partnership protocols will need to be written so that each regulator understands its role in holding the relevant persons to account. That is a challenge.
While the Bill makes it clearer who is responsible, who is going to lead the charge to hold those people to account could be made even clearer through something like a review of the LACORS protocol that we currently have, to make sure that those things are in place and applied consistently across the country. As I said, I commend colleagues in London for being on the front foot in getting that agreement in place. If that agreement was adopted as a national standard, it would bring some consistency of approach across the country and some confidence in how these things are dealt with.
Noah Law
Q
Dan Daly: I will pick up on your last question and then hand over to my colleague on the independent auditing, because we have been talking about that. We already have a duty to collaborate, so that is not new, but providing some clarity around how regulators and agencies will work together in a consistent way that is applied nationally will improve it. I am not sure that it offers us individually anything more than we currently have, but across the wider sector, that duty to collaborate is not unhelpful.
Penny Pender: The point in the Bill about solidifying independent auditing is crucial, and I agree with everything that Helen on the previous panel said. That is a really welcome part of the Bill, and it will hopefully assist in these cases. If I may speak to the concern that Mr Blackman mentioned, just because something has planning permission does not mean that it meets the functional requirements of the building regulations. If those buildings went up with combustible cladding on them, they do not meet the building regulations, full stop. Hopefully there are sufficient powers across the built environment to deal with that, and we would hope to see the Building Safety Regulator and others step in where needed.
There might be room for examining the implementation dates for the Bill, because there are some possible gaps. The Bill will only apply, I think, to buildings that were built before April ’22. There are some periods of time there, such as the possible 15-month gap between when the Building Safety Act came into force and when gateway 2 started, that might bear examination and would be good to look into. There was also an eight-month gap between the Bill coming into force and the review of the combustible cladding ban.
You might recall that there was a combustible cladding ban put in place for buildings over 18 metres; that was reviewed and it was clarified that it would apply from 11 metres, but there was an eight-month gap during which it might have been incorrectly perceived by some in industry—even though we would disagree—that it was acceptable to put combustible material on to those buildings. Even though we would say ultimately that it still does not meet the functional requirements, some may have misunderstood that, so it would be worth examining the timeframes in the Bill to make sure that that is okay.
Rachel Blake
Q
Penny Pender: That is a good question. I would suggest that it is possibly not necessary. There is already a lead regulator’s protocol in existence. It is known as the LACORS guidance, produced by local authority co-ordinators of regulatory services. All authorities would have had local agreements in place aligning to that at some point. The challenge is that it was not kept up to date, particularly following the implementation of the Building Safety Act.
We have been advocating for it to be updated since then. That could be achieved without waiting for primary legislation, and it would be helpful if it was done once and done nationally, and then local regulators were given the option to adopt it or to develop their own ones if they felt that was necessary. As Spencer said, London has done a lot of the heavy lifting already with the pan-London fire safety protocol, so that could easily be lifted and shifted and adopted nationally.
As Dan said, the impact assessment identifies that outside of mayoral arrangements, there could be anywhere up to 157 local partnership agreements that would have to be developed and signed off within only a four-month time period. Our concern is that that could distract from local enforcement on the ground, because in some of the smaller authorities, the staff who are needed for enforcement would have to be diverted towards developing the agreements or writing to the Secretary of State to justify why they have not. We think it should be done nationally and done once.
Rachel Blake
Q
Penny Pender: Yes, absolutely. I am sure they will be. We will be encouraging our members to do exactly that.
Dan Daly: With everyone tuning in independently, though, there is a risk of inconsistency, so some central co-ordination would bring the consistency we are looking for.
Rachel Blake
Q
Penny Pender: One of the benefits of those types of protocols is that they identify the local working arrangements when there is a need for escalation, so it would be dealt with within the scope of those.
Rachel Blake
Q
Dan Daly: We have been saying collectively that what is in here at the minute does not do the work that we would like it to do. We would like that national co-ordination, and within that agreement, for there to be sign-up from partners on who owns the lead in certain circumstances, so it should not require someone to step in and mediate.
Without that agreement, there is more risk of delay as people debate inconsistently through local agreements, or you have a stand-off between agencies because there is no agreement in place. We can tackle that by moving the national agreement forward more quickly to remove the doubt and maybe answer the questions you are asking.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Spencer Sutcliff: Naturally, we are very supportive of RPEEPs and personal evacuation plans. However, our preference would be for the measure to go further and look at fire risk within homes, rather than just being focused on the escape routes.
Dan Daly: I think there are other benefits, one of which is about providing extra assurance on the plans that have been put in place. We know that fires start inside individual dwellings; they rarely start in the common parts of a building. There is also an opportunity to ensure the maintenance of some of the passive fire safety protection that is designed within a building—whether that is where people have access to common service risers, or where they have made adaptions to fire doors and things inside those properties. That is part of the building integrity overall.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dan Daly: I think the partnership agreement I was talking about would set out very clearly, in certain circumstances, who was leading on what. At the moment, where that is not as clear as it could be, and where there is a reliance on separate entities coming up with these in quick order after the Bill is passed, that leads to the possibility of inconsistency in how they are done. Of course, they do not always come to those agreements quickly, because there will be different viewpoints, so I do not think it would be unhelpful to do that ahead of time.
Sarah Coombes
Q
Penny Pender: I think that the Bill provides a few more tools in the toolbox, as some of our colleagues said earlier. I think the introduction of some of those financial penalties is really interesting and useful to see. The proof will be in the pudding, so it is certainly worth trying them in certain circumstances and seeing how it goes. We hope that they will be helpful. I know that some fire and rescue services have potential interest in those being expanded beyond just the Bill to the application of the whole fire safety order. I think this will be a really useful opportunity to see how it goes, and then to learn from that. Hopefully, it will make a difference.
Peter Fortune
Q
Spencer Sutcliff: That has been a fairly long-standing concern of ours. We have obviously prioritised that and done a lot of work in-house, and our competency levels—as we would determine them—have improved fairly significantly over the last few years. We certainly had a moment in time when we lost quite a high number of highly competent and experienced staff to the private sector, because we simply could not compete financially. We have been well supported by the London Mayor and our GLA colleagues to make arrangements to reduce that impact a little, and that has had some positive effects. Recently, over the last 24 months, we have thankfully had much less of that.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions to this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Kate Green gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Kate Green, the deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester. I want to confirm, Kate, that you can hear and see us in the Committee. Under the programme order, we have until 1 pm for this panel. Will you briefly introduce yourself for the record?
Kate Green: Yes, and thank you for the invitation to address the Committee. I am Kate Green. I am the deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester with responsibility for safer and stronger communities.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Kate Green: I think it is true to say, Mr Bacon, that one of the things that residents are looking for is greater certainty, and this is a very complex regulatory and enforcement landscape. We would certainly like to see greater clarity, not necessarily in the Bill, but perhaps in supporting documentation and guidance on how different regulators and enforcers interact with one another, on the escalation processes, and on who is responsible for taking enforcement action in specific circumstances, so that residents can be confident in how the processes work and that they work smoothly and seamlessly.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Kate Green: Capacity is a real concern across the whole system, including for local authorities, as you rightly identify. We have welcomed, and Greater Manchester fire and rescue service, which I oversee on the mayor’s behalf, has welcomed the additional funding that we have received, but it will be important that all new burdens on local authorities are funded adequately and sustainably. The enforcement requirement—that regulatory role—is here to stay; it is not just a one-off, albeit that we clearly have a surge of activity and demand as we remediate a significant number of buildings in Greater Manchester, as part of the legacy of the appalling Grenfell Tower fire nearly 10 years ago.
I think it is important to recognise that particularly across fire safety enforcement and inspection we are struggling to recruit and, more significantly, to retain staff. There are real pressures and competition from private sector employers, who can offer much higher salaries. In Greater Manchester, across all 10 of our local authorities, we are giving high priority to protecting and supporting our residents, but there is no doubt that in times of considerable financial pressure on local government, as you identify, that is a challenge—and it is one that the Government will need to ensure is adequately resourced, so that local authorities and other statutory services can properly fulfil their responsibilities.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Kate Green: The first thing is to provide greater certainty and clarity about what is encompassed in the Government’s remediation commitments. We very much welcome the Bill and the funding already being made available to us to take steps to support our residents. It is useful to have those much more effective funding pathways.
We particularly welcomed the improvements in the funding process through the cladding safety scheme. I pay tribute to Homes England and Helen Fisher, whom I think you have heard from already this morning. That scheme has been a real game changer in enabling funding to begin to move into the system so that buildings can be remediated.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill on mitigations for residents who are exercising the right to manage their buildings or are in resident management companies, although we have concerns that there remains a risk of penalties and sanctions for those residents. We have made progress in Greater Manchester as a result of the attention that the Government have given to remediation of buildings with fire safety defects in recent years. According to MHCLG data, remediation has been completed for 152 buildings in Greater Manchester, but that means that we still have 181, as at quarter 4 last year, for which remediation is deemed outstanding. I would also point to the buildings that require remediation for other defects that will not be covered by the scope of this legislation.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Kate Green: This is a helpful provision; it potentially gives regulators a timelier and more proportionate enforcement option, but we would not want that to arrive at a situation where commercial developers, who often have very deep pockets, considered that a financial penalty was an acceptable cost of delay and that they could afford to hold back, address other priorities that they might have and just pay the price of that. We really do see those penalties as a backstop to other effective enforcement action.
We would also draw attention to the need for the capacity to use that civil route to secure compliance. There will need to be investigation, evidence gathering, decision making and dealing with appeals, and all that will require sustainable long-term funding in to the system. A civil route is certainly welcome. However, our other concern is about buildings subject to the developer contract, where using a contractual route rather than a statutory basis to ensure compliance puts more hurdles, if you like, in the way of residents seeking to have their buildings remediated.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Kate Green: Yes. Unfortunately, I did not hear Ms Fisher’s evidence this morning, but I do share those concerns. There will be an audit process, but that will be a dip sample, in a way; there will not be capacity for Homes England to audit every fire risk assessment that is undertaken. We will need to know that we have a robust audit process and that Homes England has the resources to carry that out.
We also need to be clear that where fire risks are deemed tolerable, there is an appropriate response from the insurance industry, which recognises that they must have full regard to that audit process based on the PAS 9980 framework that you referred to, and that, if fire risks are deemed tolerable, residents should not be penalised by higher insurance premiums, because effectively the insurance now has that assurance that the building can be insured cost-effectively.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Kate Green: I share that concern. The Government will need to ensure that the fire risk assessments and the decisions of fire risk assessors are robust and consistent. Otherwise, there are avenues open for people to game the system or to obtain an assessment that is more favourable to their own interests.
There is a risk there, and I hope that in the course of the passage of the Bill the Government will think about how they can ensure that that fire risk assessment PAS 9980 framework is fully robust and can give full assurance to residents.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Q
Kate Green: I think that the mayoral combined authority has had and can continue to have a role in helping to speed up the process. In Greater Manchester, shortly after the appalling fire in Grenfell Tower in 2017, the then mayor established a high-rise taskforce, chaired by Paul Dennett, the Salford city council mayor. Paul now chairs a high-rise oversight group where we are able to convene local authorities and the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service. Homes England attends, as do the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, housing providers, developers and residents. They can all be convened around one remediation programme.
Of course you will know, as members of the Committee, that we and other mayoral combined authorities published our local remediation acceleration plans in recent months. Those plans are the articulation of the whole-system approach that I think mayors and mayoral combined authorities can help to put in place. We have been able to use our plan to do a number of things, including, obviously, to understand more clearly what buildings are affected in Greater Manchester and what the nature of the risk is in each of those buildings. We have been able to be close to and very fully engaged with our residents, and to ensure that a residents-first focus sits at the heart of the work that we are doing in Greater Manchester and the work that we want to see nationally.
We have been able to bring the social housing partners to the table, which has been exceptionally useful in considering how we get social properties remediated and how we can work with our social housing providers in Greater Manchester to do that as swiftly and as effectively as possible. We can escalate matters when they become stalled. We have also been able to lobby Government; I think it has been helpful that Greater Manchester has been able to present a concerted voice to successive Governments for funding and for action—now resulting in this legislation.
There is a lot more that we hope to do with our local remediation acceleration plan in the coming months and years, and at the heart of that will be resident engagement. Our residents continue to live with a very significant impact on their mental health and their financial position, and in many cases with continuing uncertainty about when their buildings will be fully remediated. I see the work that we are able to do as a mayoral combined authority, maintaining the spotlight on the lived experience of our residents and reflecting that back both into the action that we can take and into the action that we ask national Government to take, as being crucial.
The final thing I will say, given that I have the very specific role of oversight of the fire and rescue service, is that in Greater Manchester we have been able to prioritise having the right capacity in the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service to support the regulatory regime—the inspection and enforcement programmes that are required. That work, and the oversight of the implementation of all the recommendations that came out of the two Grenfell Tower inquiry reports, is being taken forward. We can oversee all that through a series of governance structures that are led by our chief fire officer. One of the things that mayoral combined authorities are in a very useful position to do is to draw all those different players in a geography together.
Peter Fortune
Q
Kate Green: On right to manage and resident management companies—although obviously we are also concerned that all charges are eventually at risk of being passed through to residents—the first thing I would say is that they are already experiencing quite significant financial burdens, because they are unremunerated for what is in many cases a substantial workload. Despite the welcome mitigations in the Bill, they also still ultimately face the risk of criminal sanctions, so we would certainly like attention to be given to that.
In terms of service charges, there are concerns around transparency; residents must be fully informed about the way in which service charges are made up. In my past life as a constituency MP, I think we saw that some professional commercial managing agents were more transparent than others. There needs to be that ability to ensure that the conduct of commercial managing agents is in the interests of residents—obviously they will be acting in the interests of their principal, but we should be very clear about their obligations on behalf of their principal to residents. Frankly, appeals are the last resort, are they not? What we actually want to see is a robust system, which ensures that service charges are fair and proportionate, and that no resident is required to pay, through their service charge or otherwise, for faults and defects in their building that are not of their making.
Peter Fortune
Q
Kate Green: I would certainly want to see more protection for residents who are acting in the right to manage and resident management company space. Prescribing more closely what can and cannot be reflected through service charges may be something that the Government should explore.
Sagal Abdi-Wali
Q
Kate Green: The difference ought to be, from the perspective of the resident, that the work gets done first and that the argument about who pays does not delay the work to make their homes safe. A backstop needs to be exactly what it claims to be: a backstop. What we actually want is a system that ensures, much more swiftly, much earlier and much more effectively, that people fulfil the remediation obligations imposed on them.
As I say, we are probably particularly concerned about those developers whose remediation activity will be overseen through the medium of the developer contracts. We still have quite a complex landscape, I think, of ways in which residents might try to compel remediation. A backstop is necessary, but we would much prefer to see a left shift, ensuring that the obligation to remediate is carried out by responsible actors at the earliest point and is compliant with regulatory requirements from the start of the process.
Bob Blackman
Q
Kate Green: There are two things: one is that we would like to see the Bill extended to cover defects that are not related to cladding or external walls; the second is workforce capacity. By that I mean capacity both in the regulatory sector—fire authorities, fire services, local authorities and other regulators—and in the construction sector. The tension that the Government are managing between meeting their house building targets, which we support, and getting existing buildings remediated in an industrial sector that is facing significant workforce pressures is a real concern to us.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions this morning. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you, Kate, for your evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Sarah Coombes.)
Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Only that the headquarters for the London Fire Brigade are in my constituency.
Examination of Witnesses
Jaclyn Mangaroo and Kate Henderson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Property Institute and the National Housing Federation. We have until 2.35 pm for this panel. May I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly?
Kate Henderson: My name is Kate Henderson. I am chief executive of the National Housing Federation. We represent not-for-profit providers of social and affordable housing in England.
Jaclyn Mangaroo: I am Jaclyn Mangaroo from the Property Institute. We are the professional body for residential property managers. Our members manage about 2.5 million homes across the country and are directly involved in supporting remediation projects and affected residents.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Q
Kate Henderson: First, thank you for inviting the National Housing Federation to give evidence to the Committee. The safety of residents is our No. 1 priority, and we welcome the Bill and its intention. I also acknowledge and pay tribute to the work of Grenfell United; we are here because of the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, where 72 people lost their lives.
We are absolutely committed to accelerating the pace of remediation in the social housing sector. There was no funding for social housing remediation until the spending review in 2025. Social housing providers were paying for remediation themselves, and that took money away from major refurbishments and new supply. Since the very welcome access was granted to the cladding safety scheme, we have been able to accelerate the pace of remediation, and we expect more properties to come forward.
We can supply the facts and figures on how many properties we have remediated self-funded and how many are being remediated with Government funding to the Committee. I have the details here, but I am not sure that anyone wants me to go through the facts and figures now.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Kate Henderson: Not having funding for remediation has undoubtedly taken huge capacity out of the social housing sector. Since the fire, we have been working very hard to remediate buildings, but the pace of that, without Government funding, was much slower than we would have liked. Last year’s funding has changed this, but it is not just about money; it is also about the system around it. It is about the capacity of the Building Safety Regulator, and not just external walls but internal defects, and the system of assurance and having enough technical competency to support us in that work.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Kate Henderson: The new leadership of the Building Safety Regulator has undoubtedly improved things, but up until the last 18 months, when gateway 2 timeframes have started to improve, it has been very slow. It is really important that the Building Safety Regulator and the forthcoming single construction regulator are adequately resourced by Government to deliver at scale and pace. In the wider construction sector, there is huge upskilling to do to ensure we have the expertise to do fire risk assessments of external walls—FRAEWs—and get consistency of implementation of methodology with PAS 9980,. We are working with lots of people and contractors in the process, but we need many more.
In addition to needing more people with expertise, we need consistency, which I know came up in evidence this morning. At the moment, we are hearing from our members that PAS 9980 is subjective, and different assessors will come up with different decisions. You can have two assessors look at the same property; one will say it requires remediation and one will say it does not. The proposal for a mandatory audit system with Homes England is very welcome. We would like a feedback loop to be built into that system so that any poor practice can be identified and challenged and any patterns of inconsistencies can be flagged. Then, that feedback can be taken back into account in any future updates of PAS 9980.
The Chair
Q
Jaclyn Mangaroo: I agree with a lot of what you said, Kate, particularly around the upskilling and resource elements. What we and our members see is that some of the delays start much earlier in the gateway 2 process. The real problem, which this Bill, with some amendments, will hopefully tackle, is where buildings are completely stalled from the beginning—where scope of works cannot be agreed and, like Kate said, where FRAEWs differ. Standardisation and auditing of FRAEWs will definitely help, as long as that is a speedy process. I understand that we are still waiting on regulation of the fire risk assessor profession.
The Chair
If there is anything that you want the Committee to know, you can write in. Ms Henderson, you suggested that there was some information that should be put before the Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Jaclyn Mangaroo: That is a very good question. I think it goes some of the way by imposing that legal duty, but sometimes that does not fall on the person who will be accountable in terms of having the resources or being able to actually deliver remediation. I am thinking about resident management companies and right to manage companies that would become responsible entities and have that legal duty. They do not necessarily have the resources needed to compel a pledged developer, for example, or a product manufacturer to do that without pursuing them through litigation. RMCs and RTMCs do not really have those resources; they have the service charges, but they cannot always use those to fund litigation or remediation works themselves.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Jaclyn Mangaroo: We welcome the remediation backstop, but that it would be great to see that come further forward so that you do not have to go through enforcement or sanctions to get to that remediation backstop. Particularly where we have evidence that buildings are stalled in the very early stages of project scoping, I think that that would be a reasonable opportunity for the regulators to step in and bring in a remediation manager or bring forward a remediation order or remediation contribution order. I do not think that some of those resources are necessarily being used proactively. I have not seen any transparent data on their use by Homes England and other regulators, and I think that could really help.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Kate Henderson: Equal access to remediation funding, brought in last year at the spending review, is hugely welcome. It has made a big difference to our ability to deliver remediation at pace and to invest in existing homes and development. Previously, our members—housing associations—and councils had to self-fund remediation, which diverted resources away from new homes and refurbishment. Some of our members even had to sell buildings to pay for remediation work. Members are now actively applying to the cladding safety scheme and receiving funding. We are expecting starts and completions of remediation by our members to begin to increase as we get the approvals. Homes England will be able to provide more data on that.
Funding from the cladding safety scheme also funds things such as project management, which is really important to deliver remediation faster. It frees capacity within our member organisations to build new affordable homes and improve existing ones. I should say that the funding only covers external wall defects; members are still facing significant costs for internal walls, including compartmentation and fire doors. We very much welcome the cladding safety scheme funding for high-risk buildings, and new funding has become available for buildings under 11 metres that are also deemed high-risk. That opened earlier this year, and we understand that that fund for buildings under 11 metres is massively oversubscribed. It would be really useful to have the data from those applications to understand the scale of works required in high-risk buildings under 11 metres.
In the sector more broadly, there are lots of other significant changes happening. We absolutely support Awaab’s law and welcome the clarity in the decent homes standard, but recognise that those measures all add cost. Remediation funding that we have access to very much helps to meet those competing demands and makes them more manageable, but the overall financial picture remains complex and has its challenges.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Q
Jaclyn Mangaroo: That is a really good question. In some cases, it may be. We have seen it most often with the pledged developers where they are using a contractor that may be part of the organisation, and so are marking their own homework. For a responsible entity where it is an enfranchised building, or where an RMC or an RTMC has the opportunity, they have really no incentive to say that their building is safe when it is not. They have very little incentive to do that. They really want to go much further.
The regulation of the profession will certainly help to improve competency, and hopefully it will speed up the process and reduce delays, as long as that auditing of the fire risk assessments can be done quickly through Homes England. We are all about making sure that there are fewer delays, that stalled buildings can get started and that residents have peace of mind. There is no deadline. There is no set date for when buildings will be finished, so making sure that we get peace of mind, confidence and protection of residents into this Bill will be so important. That is how we have approached our written evidence to the Committee: does it speed things up, does it provide clearer accountability and will it actually give residents peace of mind and create safer buildings?
Sarah Gibson
Q
Jaclyn Mangaroo: I do not know of any particular cases of that. It is more when there is a pledged developer involved. I cannot comment specifically on any other cases.
Kate Henderson: From our members’ perspective, we have already been working really hard to deliver the duties that will become part of the Bill: for example, assessing buildings, mitigating risk, applying for funding and carrying out remediation works. We welcome the introduction of the remediation compliance plans as a way of demonstrating transparency and accountability to enforcing bodies, but also of demonstrating accountability to residents. Having clear plans and timelines will help ensure that expectations are managed, that any delays are addressed quickly, that enforcement action can be taken against bad actors and, in exceptional circumstances, that the backstop can be used to secure a route to remediation.
We welcome standardisation of the fire risk assessments of external walls methodology and the intention that every building be assessed and remediated to the same standard. As I have mentioned, the PAS 9980 methodology has already been used to access funding to the cladding safety scheme. I have also mentioned that we have mixed experience of assessors using PAS 9980 and that it can be subjective. Having a national audit system run by Homes England with a feedback loop will be really welcomed by the sector. I should also say that alongside auditing, as you have mentioned, having regulation of the competence of risk assessors as part of the introduction of a single construction regulator will help to ensure that recommendations are consistent and of good quality. That will provide assurance and transparency to all involved, particularly residents.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Q
Kate Henderson: There is nothing more important than residents’ safety, and I can assure you that our members have safety as their utmost priority and responsibility. We are already delivering a huge number of aspects of remediation work that will be covered by and become statutory duties in the Bill, and we welcome that. This legislation is only one piece of the response to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. There are other pieces of legislation, but in addition to that, a huge part of this work is around culture. It is around learning, accountability and the relationship between residents and their landlords.
As part of that, in a couple of weeks’ time we will be launching a suite of tools for our members—a Grenfell Tower reflection toolkit. This is about learning lessons from the inquiry. It is a suite of resources for board members, executives, operational levels, large organisations and small organisations, making sure that this is not just about physically replacing cladding, but about listening and acting on the information being provided by residents, having appropriate assurances in place, and making it culturally at the heart of who we are as organisations.
On whether we have the capacity to deliver these new requirements, we are already doing a lot of it, but the capacity of the overall system is not us alone. We rely on expertise, fire risk assessors, contractors and the capacity of the Building Safety Regulator. A lot of work is happening on all those fronts, but everybody is going to have to work harder. We are going to need a lot more people and a lot more expertise. We are really pleased to see the leadership of the Building Safety Regulator drive forward the pace of assessments to gateway 2. We are seeing improvements there. That needs to continue, and we are committed to working with all involved, including Government and particularly residents.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
Kate Henderson: I am not sure that as the trade body, with our members being the regulated entity, we are best placed to answer that question.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Kate Henderson: We would very much welcome clarity on the regulatory system to ensure that we get clarity on the works that need to happen in a timely way. How that would be worked out is perhaps a question for Government. I do not think I am best placed on that one.
Jaclyn Mangaroo: I agree with that. I think clarity is absolutely key for every provision in the Bill. It is not something that TPI can necessarily comment on, but we need to identify who the final decision maker is.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Q
Jaclyn Mangaroo: Hopefully, issues in those cases will be few and far between, but the backstop and the appointment of a remediation manager is the only way to go. It is important that residents have some certainty and a point of contact in somebody who will be responsible for that. At the moment, yes, I think the Bill does go far enough in those cases.
Andrew Cooper
Q
On the other side, the Government have provided some certainty to the sector through rent convergence, through the 10-year rent settlement, through the social and affordable homes programme and by bringing you in scope of the building safety fund. Do we have the balance right in the resources that are available to the sector from central Government versus what you would expect housing associations to fund directly, either through service charges or through rents paid by tenants?
Kate Henderson: Thank you very much for the question. In the last 18 months, the Government have done a huge amount to rebuild the capacity of the social housing sector—housing associations and councils. Importantly, that has included equal access to building safety funding with an additional £1 billion into the cladding safety scheme. Alongside that, we now have a 10-year rent settlement, rent convergence and the new National Housing Bank. Low-interest loans will hopefully be introduced soon. We also have, of course, the social and affordable homes programme.
The Government have very much listened and engaged and are working constructively with us. We are ambitious, both about ensuring that our existing homes and service provision are of the quality that we would all want and about building many more new homes. All our members are impacted by the building safety crisis, but those less impacted now have more capacity to deliver homes. If grant funding were available, we could deliver tens of thousands more social and affordable homes.
In terms of the balance we have now, we are looking at the overall regulatory landscape. As I say, we support the introduction of the decent homes standard and the implementation of Awaab’s law. We absolutely support and are working very hard on the building safety regulations. But there is a cost to all of this. Our ability to do all those things at once will be down to the individual priorities of organisations. We are meeting quite stringent timelines, which have been set by Government, on things like minimum energy efficiency standards. We support that direction of travel, but there is only so much money in the system.
You mentioned regeneration. We would really welcome more flexibility in the social and affordable homes programme to deliver replacement supply as well as new supply. We are very focused on net additions. I understand that we desperately need more homes, but we do need to invest in places. Similarly, when it comes to investing in building safety measures, I have mentioned the welcome funding that came earlier this year for high-risk buildings under 11 metres. There is not enough money to support those works. If there were more money, based on assessment of the applications that have come into Homes England for the under-11-metre scheme, that would free up the capacity to do more supply. We want to do all those things; our ability to do them at pace is impacted by how much money there is in the system.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Q
If I can be cheeky, I have a second question, which should perhaps go to Kate. Do you have sight of your members’ risk registers? If so, how are they flashing up some of the challenges presented in the Bill?
Jaclyn Mangaroo: Much of our written evidence is focused not just on the service charges, but on the unintended consequences. It might fall on residents to fund litigation to pursue the responsible people—the polluter, effectively—to deliver remediation. We want to see greater protection for those.
There is already a lot of law, particularly under the Building Safety Act 2022, around what can be passed through the service charges and what cannot. Building Safety Act costs and service charges have gone up around 50% in the last two years. That is still a very small proportion of those service charge costs, but where residents are not protected at all is for risk mitigation measures, interim measures, fixing internal defects and non-cladding work. There is no funding for that. It is outside the scope of the remediation contract for the developers; it is outside the scope of PAS 9980.
Ultimately, when we speak to our members, mostly residents are picking up the tabs for those interim measures, regardless of whether they are waiting for the cladding to be replaced. Compartmentation, fire stopping and fire doors is a significant issue. We must look at how we fund that and how we protect leaseholders from those rising service charge costs.
The other thing, which came up this morning as well, is higher insurance premiums. We are seeing insurers and lenders price risk not just on cladding, but on those internal defects and on structural defects. We do not just have a cladding crisis; we have a safety and construction quality crisis. That is what we are finding. These buildings are not lasting as long as they should. That is coming home to roost and is landing on leaseholders. They did not cause these problems in the first place, but it is being visited upon them, so one of the things we would like to see is greater protection for those residents.
Part of that solution will be looking at the qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholder protection provisions in the Building Safety Act. We appreciate that the Secretary of State introduced proposals to change some of the rules around that. We would like to see it go altogether. Why, as a leaseholder, should you have to pay for any defect that was not of your making? The process, the regime, is highly complicated. It is very, very difficult for a leaseholder to get involved in the process, and it creates an unstable resource pot to fund the remediation, because even if you have a cap, you only pay 10% of that cap, which means that you could be waiting 10 years until the pot is large enough to undertake those works.
There is a lot that can be done to protect leaseholders from further costs from all this. Good question—thank you.
The Chair
We have five minutes left and one Member to get in, so I will be grateful if you can keep your answer quite brief.
Kate Henderson: Yes, of course. I agree with what has been said. It is important to recognise just how distressing this is for leaseholders and shared owners, who feel trapped, cannot sell their home and are facing rising service charges and insurance bills. People really need a route forward. Accelerating remediation is absolutely the key to this. For us, having access to remediation funding has been a really important step forward, but we want to work with Government to unblock delays and ensure that wider safety defects do not leave residents facing continued uncertainty. There is more I could say there, but I will not. I will just say, on risk registers, that the Regulator of Social Housing will collect this data and will be engaging with all housing associations, but they have to stress-test their business models.
In terms of risk, the Bill itself is part of a tool for addressing the wider building safety crisis. Building safety will be a top risk for all our members, and they will all have mitigation strategies.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Q
Jaclyn Mangaroo: Where there is an RMC or an RTM director or company, they should be given access to a fund to at least fund the litigation up front; they should not have to be scrabbling around in their pockets to try to fund litigation or go after developers. That would be really helpful. It is unfair that they have taken on a role as a volunteer, as you say, are trying to do the right thing and are having this duty visited upon them. I think they will need special consideration when it comes to the enforcement and sanctions in the Bill. They do not have a big pot of money to fund either the remediation work itself or the litigation costs or legal costs to pursue the responsible parties.
The Chair
We have come to the end of our allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Giles Grover and Sophie Bichener gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from End Our Cladding Scandal. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly identify themselves?
Giles Grover: Hi, I am Giles Grover. I am the co-lead of End Our Cladding Scandal. I am a resident and leaseholder, and an RMC director and principal accountable person. I have been trapped and involved in this crisis since August 2017, and I still have a home that is not safe.
Sophie Bichener: I am Sophie Bichener, a campaigner for End Our Cladding Scandal and an impacted leaseholder. My building has been through one round of remediation. It was found to be unsafe the month after the Grenfell tragedy, and we are still working through trying to fully remediate it. Giles and I support leaseholders up and down the country who are like us: trapped in buildings that are unremediated and unsafe.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Giles Grover: Essentially, improving a failed system is not the same as introducing one that is capable of fixing this crisis once and for all. We have been dealing with this for nine years, and particularly for the last two years we have been pointing out all these issues—the gaps in protection, the non-cladding defects that keep being mentioned and what needs to be done to actually end this crisis—but we have not really seen any movement.
The Bill is still focused on external walls. It puts a lot of strain on volunteer directors and rules out developers from a legal duty to remediate, and it still focuses on cladding. It does not really deal with all the issues we have seen for the last seven, eight or nine years. As far as we are concerned, it just addresses a lot of the gaps and mistakes from the Building Safety Act—the ineffective protections and the fact that people are just getting pushed from pillar to post. This Bill will make things a heck of a lot more complicated for people, and it will not deliver the certainty we need to actually end this crisis.
Sophie Bichener: We consider a lot of people and a lot of different situations. When we saw the Bill, we were able to stress-test it through lots of different buildings and leaseholders. There is not likely to be a silver bullet that fixes every single scenario, but this Bill leaves too many gaps in our minds, as Giles said, with the non-cladding defects and non-qualifying leaseholders, and it places an unfair burden on RMC buildings and leaves leaseholders with sky-high interim costs. While we wait for these laws to play out and for buildings to be remediated, many leaseholders are still struggling with the interim costs and unaffordable service charges.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Giles Grover: I do not know how far back to go in terms of all the legislation that is already out there, but we can start with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and there is the Fire Safety Act 2021, which clarifies that, the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the changes to it with leasehold reform—and now we have another Bill. We have all these different laws that have been put in place, a heck of a lot of different interpretations of risk and different funding schemes. That will need regulators all over the place—central regulators, local regulators, MHCLG regulators. You have the developer contract, the building safety regulator, the recovery strategy unit and local remediation acceleration plans as well.
This is just adding a layer of complexity. It is not actually giving us what we need. We have some people in some buildings at some heights being protected from the costs of some defects. Rather than fixing that and addressing those gaps, we are focusing on cladding and not thinking about making a building fully safe. We have a number of buildings where the cladding remediation cannot even start because of structural issues because of non-cladding defects. It is not actually doing anything for the people, residents, leaseholders and shared owners who are the victims of the crisis—the only innocent ones.
Successive Governments have caused this crisis, along with the construction industry and the bad practice it has enabled. We still find this game of everyone blaming everyone else and saying, “They should do the right thing.” Residents and leaseholders are trapped facing attritional battles, and RMCs and RTMs are trying to get answers, and you just go round in circles. Nothing in this Bill is really going to do much to help that, whether it is legislation or delivery. Delivery needs to be key and really focused on. This just feels like more legislation—push it out, and see how it has gone in five years. It will not help people at all.
Gareth Bacon
I am sorry, because that is fascinating and I could talk to you for a long time, but unfortunately other colleagues need to come in.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Giles Grover: Going back to the basics and the framing of the question, cladding was the reason for the fire spreading, but we must also look at the insulation that was part of the cladding, the stay-put policy, the defective smoke vents and the defective fire doors. That is not being fixed in one go immediately. That is the first problem with this.
We have always called for compulsory purchase orders. Bob Blackman was on the Housing Committee in 2020 that called for compulsory purchase orders, if the pace was not quick enough. The Government response was, “Okay, we might consider those.” It is long overdue, and a lot of this is now putting it on a statutory footing, but how long will it take to take effect? If you look at the Bill’s impact assessment, it is about 180 buildings and 12,000 residents, so it is not real material change, the change we were promised by Labour. It is probably good, but it should have been there a while ago. We need a heck of a lot more.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Giles Grover: A lot of this is about control. On that point about building owners, yes, there is obviously going to be a conflict of interest. We have seen that. If you step back, we have had a shifting position from the consolidated advice note. It essentially says, “Remove and replace everything”, which again was probably going to be impossible. We need to get towards a proportionate approach, as they call it. Some people want proportionality, because they want to be able to move on with their lives. Other people are very worried about their permanently high insurance and so on carrying on.
A lot of this is about the operationalisation of the PAS and the tolerability. It is that control. It is about making sure that, if you have a risk assessment that comes to certain conclusions, even the Government’s own advice about understanding quality on the FRU says, “You need to make sure that conclusions are based on evidence”. There are so many assumptions: “Is that continuous? It’s probably not continuous behind the scenes. Let’s not worry about it.”
The Building Safety Act put leaseholders at the back of the queue, but a lot of what it did, unfortunately, opened the way for freeholders, developers and everyone to start gaming the system, blaming each other and saying, “Okay, it is a relevant defect; it is not a life-critical fire safety defect. It might be wear and tear actually”, which means we have to pay for it. There is too much buck-passing and shifting around, so yes, that is an issue, but again, it goes back to the fact that the way that the use of the PAS and the FRUs have been operationalised without the assurance, particularly the developers and contractors. That is a major concern of ours. I could go on, but I probably do not have time.
Sophie Bichener: Building owners over the past 10 years and before have shown that they are not willing to do the right thing and make sure that they appoint the right people to get to a decision on these homes. They have had plenty of time and opportunity to do that, and in many cases they have not. Many buildings are owned by pension funds, for example, which bought them as a sustainable investment, and they have a duty to their pensioners to keep costs low. I think they probably want to make the buildings good and sell them on at a profit if they can, so there is a real financial interest to narrow the scope of the works and get it done as quickly as possible.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Giles Grover: We have been saying this since before it was even introduced: it is all about what “tolerable” means. Again, I understand that we need something about proportionality, but so many different fire engineers will have so many different opinions and views. If something is deemed tolerable, whether it is a building that requires works or does not require works, there must be assurance and proper audits to ensure that the conclusion is based on tests and evidence.
If I am being honest, we have been through 20 or 30 years of just a lot of rubbish being built. Now everyone is saying, “Residents, leaseholders and shared owners are at the heart of this”, but they are still doing all they can to avoid liability, including financial liability. We are the ones trying to battle for answers, and we are sadly just going around and around in circles.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Q
One of the things that residents often call for is greater certainty about what is happening to their buildings and when, particularly what remediation work will be done and over what timeframe. What value is there in requiring those responsible to set out the steps they will take and, critically, the timetable for remediation? What are your thoughts on that element?
Giles Grover: Every single leaseholder and resident needs to understand what is going on in their building and how long it is going to take, but they also need an independent route to raise concerns. The system has been designed in such a way that, even with the developer contract and the cladding safety scheme—which is doing sterling work, but in a very constrained system—a lot of it still relies upon us having to go to the managing agent or a freeholder for answers.
I have one person in a building who went to the RMC, which said, “Go to the developer”; but the developer said, “Go to the building safety regulator”, and the building safety regulator said, “Go to MHCLG.” They had to fill out a correspondence web forms, but they got a stock answer that said, “Go back to your freeholder.” Yes, people need to be put at the centre of it.
There is the ability to include dates and timescales, but they actually need to be monitored, overseen and enforced, with consequences and penalties at the end of it. That way, it is not just a case of saying, “Oh, it’s the BSR and the regulatory capacities; okay, fair enough. Oh, they’ve had to do more FRUs.” The problem is that the system still allows too much to rely on those self-interested actors making those decisions. They will all tell us that safety is at the heart—but we are actually watching their actions, not their words, and they still are just not good enough.
Sophie Bichener: It is really hard to force people to communicate correctly with leaseholders. A lot of the time, freeholders are saying, “We are communicating”, but for the leaseholders, the communication says, “We’re trying really hard to fix this at pace.” Our members never have a clear picture of whether that means next week or in five years’ time. I have actually never really seen any comms about my building that give me any timeline or confidence that anything is happening.
I think it would be really hard to mandate communication that involves leaseholders, but it absolutely has to happen in order to give leaseholders any confidence that their homes will be safe and that, if they want to try to move on, move out or sell, they can get information on when the timelines for making their building safe will fall into place, and they can then feel a bit more confident not only about where they live being safe, but about, “How and when can I move on with my life?”.
Giles Grover: I should try to be positive again, because I am possibly being a bit too negative. Homes England has built stipulated communication points into its cladding safety scheme, so there are certain points of the process where you have to upload it before you get more funding. That is completely sensible; it actually looks at the quality of it and makes sure that it goes to the right people. Again, the developer contract is the one where it is about ticking a box that just says, “I am communicating 100%, so everything’s fine—see you later.” We need more consistency across the piece.
There are ways to do this, and that is what we have been trying to say for the last two and half years. We can actually simplify things, put people at the centre and save money. Sadly, we have not quite got to that point yet.
Peter Fortune
Q
Giles Grover: Not really, no. Honestly, we have tried so hard to help to show officials the way forward and what they can do to actually improve the situation. I am a residents’ management company director; because of the way that the developer contract has been handled at my building, I have tried to resign, but we cannot resign, because it will then go to the head leaseholder.
At RMCs all over the country, we have volunteers who really want to look after their homes. They are clever, intelligent people and they do the same things that freeholders do, which is to appoint agents, but they are still battling well-resourced developers and well-resourced freeholders and are trying to follow really labyrinthine policies.
There was one building in Sunderland that needed waking watch cost payments and had to put that in place in a few days. MHCLG said to them, “Fill out a building liability order, send that to your freeholder and give them 30 days to respond.” But they needed 20 grand or 30 grand that week—what is going to happen there?
A lot of it is the mentality. We have seen what has happened over the last 20 or 30 years under successive Governments, across industry. We have to put people at the centre of it and forward fund where it is needed, whether for interim measures or non-cladding defects, and then have the Government use their power to recover those funds. That would be the only sensible way forward. Until we get that in place, this crisis is not going to end.
Sophie Bichener: I would add that the Second Reading announcement on the non-qualifying improvement from three to six properties was definitely something that we had been speaking about quite a lot; we felt that had been heard, but it is not protecting all leaseholders, which is what we have said, relentlessly—no leaseholders should be paying for this. Why should one leaseholder be innocent and another have to pay for a building? Although it is welcome, I do not think it went far enough.
I feel that leaseholders are just getting more and more desperate. Giles and I have campaigned on this for 10 years. People are looking for answers and for a way out and, unfortunately, we were not able to go back from the Bill meetings we have had to say, “Yes, this is a little glimmer of hope for everybody.”
There are a few bits in the Bill that will go some way to helping some people; but, as we said at the start, it is not all people. Ten years on from Grenfell, I do not think we should still be wondering, “Will everybody be involved in the help that is coming?”. It should be that everybody has a chance to live in a safe home—if not now, they should know when that will be made safe. At present, there will still be too many people who do not have answers.
Giles Grover: The Government need to understand the number of people who hate their home right now—they are first-time buyers, and they just hate where they live. What is this system that we are living in?
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Q
Giles Grover: It will probably help but, again, it should have been in the Building Safety Act in the first place. Everything should have been effective from 14 February 2022. We were told at that point that freeholders would not be able to sell and pass on their liabilities, but they could; we saw that happen at a number of buildings. It might help to clarify a little bit, but it should have been there a long time ago—and what does that clarity mean? It will just mean that they carry on with this remediation that will leave us in the homes that we are trapped in, which are not fully safe and sellable, or they will force us to pay huge costs as well. Yes, we need to get to that point, but ultimately it is the gaps and issues that we need to address, so that when we get to that point we are not suffering the costs and effects.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Q
Sophie Bichener: Do you mean—
Noah Law
What is the economic case for not just narrowing the measures to external wall cladding?
Giles Grover: We have been trying to get that economic case made for quite a long time. We hope that MHCLG officials will make it to the all-powerful Treasury. It is about fixing the first rung of the housing ladder, which would be helpful for making sure that the housing market functions. It is giving people certainty to make sure that they can move on with their lives. It is the opportunity cost as well and the impact on growth. People cannot sell. We are trying to build 1.5 million homes, but what about the number of homes that cannot actually be sold right now, but can still be rented out? You have shared owners, and housing associations, which are meant to be charitable organisations, are refusing buyback from vulnerable shared owners whose homes are not fit for purpose. Quite simply, something that is a financial and moral imperative is not being done.
There are a number of organisations; in Greater Manchester, we have been doing this for so long that we get it, we know what we are doing and we can see all the gaps—I did not see what Kate Green said, but hopefully she raised all those. Andy and Charlie coming into the BSR was a breath of fresh air after three years of awful back and forth between MHCLG and the BSR. On Homes England, ultimately, we need the leadership we have seen there to be in place over all of this. We need proper leadership, and unfortunately that has to be non-civil servants.
Noah Law
Q
Giles Grover: There is so much self-interest throughout the system. That is how it has been built. As Grenfell United said, it
“isn’t broken, it was built this way.”
It allows too many parties to have control when they should have that control taken away from them, at least to a point where we have a consistent approach to a national standard. A lot of this is doable and we should be there by now.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, on behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of witnesses
Sam Dumitriu and Ben Hopkinson gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Sam Dumitriu: I am Sam Dumitriu, the head of policy at Britain Remade.
Ben Hopkinson: I am Ben Hopkinson, the head of housing and infrastructure at the Centre for Policy Studies.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Ben Hopkinson: There are a couple of things. There is inherently a capacity issue with the number of skilled fire inspectors. There is also a reasonable lens of professional debate within fire risk assessments. If you have a building owner and a developer, there might be reasonable professional debates over what the tolerable risks are, and that takes time. We also have to remember the sheer scope and scale of the cladding issue. I think there are 4,000 or 5,000 affected buildings across the country, and that obviously takes time. We have seen good progress being made. I suspect that, with the Bill, we will come quite close to ending it as a problem in the next few years.
Sam Dumitriu: One important thing to remember is that a lot of these important building safety projects will often themselves face bottlenecks in terms of getting approval and sign-off from the Building Safety Regulator. One of the issues that we have come across as an organisation is that many things are going through the Building Safety Regulator that probably should not be, which is leading to safety-critical issues being held up in a queue as a result.
I will give one example. We spoke to a gentleman living in Maida Vale who had a window that needed replacing. However, he was told—I think he had pretty good legal advice on this—that, in order to replace that window, he would have to get sign-off from the Building Safety Regulator. In theory, there are meant to be competent person schemes that people can go to, but, in practice, he went to three separate competent person schemes and none were willing to sign off on the works. He suspects that a lot of people are doing that kind of work behind the scenes and not going through the normal routes, but if you try to follow the rules, they seem to imply that that would be something you would need to submit. He can correct me if I am wrong, but Ben wrote about a separate case involving—I think it was a bathroom renovation, was it?
Ben Hopkinson: Yes, it was just a flat refurbishment, and that took at least nine months and several thousand pounds to go through the Building Safety Regulator. That raises questions: should restoring a flat’s kitchen, combined with installing new safety doors within the flat, really be an issue that takes nine months to get sign-off? In the first instance, should it even be something for the BSR to look at when there are a lot of other pressing commitments on its time?
Gareth Bacon
To take that example, why did it end up on the desk of the Building Safety Regulator? Was it because it insisted on that, or because people thought, “Oh crikey, I don’t want to sign this off; I’ll give it to the regulator”?
Sam Dumitriu: There are two potentially different issues between the two cases we have mentioned. In the case that I mentioned, the legislation was designed, in theory, so that competent person schemes could take these issues on, and would be happy to do that. Obviously, if you are a window fitter or whatever, you have an incentive to be quick on these things if you want more windows replaced. I think the issue was that a number of them do not believe the balance of legal risk to be right, so are concerned about liability or insurance.
Getting to the bottom of this issue has been a challenge, but we do know that the competent person schemes are not actually doing the job that they were intended to do. Work is therefore being passed to the Building Safety Regulator, which is in turn creating a backlog where projects that we really care about and are important to get done for safety reasons are being held up, stuck behind them in the queue.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Sam Dumitriu: When I have spoken to developers recently, they have suggested that, although the wait times for the Building Safety Regulator have dropped, part of that is because a bit of backlog is being cleared while not much is coming in. We know there has been a big slowdown in taller buildings, particularly in London, in part because other building safety regulations, such as the second staircase rule, have created new challenges around viability.
The question is: the Building Safety Regulator might be doing better now, but would it still be if it was getting the kind of throughput we would hope for, if the Government are to hit their 1.5 million homes target, for instance?
Gareth Bacon
Q
A question posed by one of my colleagues, who is not here this afternoon, is: in the event that they do not agree over who should be the lead regulator on something, who should hold the ring? Who should be the organisation that actually makes things happen? Who has the coercive power, if I can put it that way? Do you have a view as to who that should be, and do you think the Bill establishes that?
Ben Hopkinson: I am well aware that the Bill contains a duty to co-operate between the three different regulators you described; it is less clear to me whether it has the means to resolve differences between them. A duty to co-operate is one thing, but actually doing so and moving forward is another. I think we have seen that happen where different regulators overlap.
I know the Fingleton review on nuclear was very clear that there are concerns about whose obligation it is to decide, and that there is a culture of excessive caution in which you never want to be the one who actually makes the decision. On who the final regulator ought to be, I do not have a particularly strong view, whether it is local authorities or the BSR. I just think it should be specified whose decision it actually is. You would then build up some level of responsibility there, rather than having a slight fudge of, “Well, why don’t we all co-operate?”
Sam Dumitriu: I agree. In theory, the Building Safety Regulator should have access to the best expertise on this; however, it also has capacity challenges. One thing that I think has been underappreciated in the move from local authorities doing building control to the Building Safety Regulator is that local authorities, with housing targets and legal obligations, have an incentive to process things faster.
It is not just that it is their job; we know that many public bodies, even when they are given statutory targets to meet a certain deadline, do not necessarily decide things in that time. Local authorities at least have some sort of pressure from the top to say, for instance, “Actually, can you decide this a bit quicker? We don’t want to be in a position where we’ve missed our housing target by this much and therefore lose our ability to have a say over this type of development.”
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Ben Hopkinson: Clear responsibility, and then having the incentives actually to make the decision, would be quite good. We have to remember that the new buildings we are processing applications for are inherently significantly safer than the ones they are replacing. When it comes to fire risk, the two largest risks are the age of a building and overcrowding, both of which new buildings help alleviate.
Even in the past several years, buildings have become significantly safer, with sprinkler systems, fire evacuation lifts and no flammable materials in cladding. We really ought to figure out all we can do to make it easier for new buildings to be built. If that means assigning a regulator a specific task and trying to avoid the paralysis you get when multiple regulators have some share of the say, that would be an improvement.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Ben Hopkinson: Yes. There is definitely limited capacity within regulators, so we have to figure out where that capacity gets us the biggest safety improvement. Given that existing buildings are less safe than new buildings, they should be the priority for the BSR or a similar regulator.
Sam Dumitriu: I agree with that; I am happy to accept completely what Ben says.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Sam Dumitriu: There is a trade-off between prescriptive and more flexible regulation. Sometimes you might like to have very clear rules, even if they err very far on the side of caution. I think that in the case of building safety, what we have had is a few pieces of Government guidance in the past that have probably been too tick box and restrictive, and that has caused problems. I think that the approach of PAS 9980 is the right one in focusing on proportionality. I also support the position in clause 44 on tolerable risk.
As mentioned, it is very important that we prioritise the types of remediation that happen, because there are very large constraints in terms of who can deliver and assess these projects. As a result, you need some way of making sure something is proportionate and remediation is not necessary in every case. It can be very costly and that work can also potentially push other projects back in the queue.
The area of policy that I have spent the most time focusing on in recent memory is the regulation of nuclear power, and Ben has also raised the Fingleton review. We have some very similar issues here because it is a question of “health and safety principles”, “reasonably practicable” and terms like that. You tend to see regulation that errs on the side of caution—which in safety is understandable—but there can be a tendency to do work that is not 100% necessary.
In the case of building safety, one consideration around external cladding is that you often might have a building owner who has financial interests in the cladding being remediated that are not solely safety related. There might be a different cladding material that requires less maintenance, is more resistant to weather or might make the building nicer. If there is a potential safety case, what you do not want is a situation where that cladding is changed even though we are pretty confident that, in the event of a fire, everyone can be safely evacuated—the building might experience some damage, but ultimately the people inside the building get out okay, which is what we really care about. My instinct is that we do not want to move to a system that requires more work being done over what is proportionate. It is really important when we look at all of these things.
I think that in the Building Safety Act, in many cases, we have erred on the side of regulation beyond what is proportionate, particularly around second staircase rules for buildings above 18 metres. I think that it could very easily be raised to 30 metres without providing any real risk to the public. We need to be very cautious about insisting on things beyond what is proportionate.
Ben Hopkinson: “Tolerable” seems to be the right standard in the Bill. There is a completely understandable drive for caution and safety within these complex issues. However, we have to be careful about proportionality. Already the Bill’s impact assessment shows that the costs of it are 10 times higher than the benefits. If you removed tolerability and mandated complete safety, how expensive would that be? Would we accidentally shut down new construction because we are burdening house builders with incredible asks on development capital?
There are a lot of competing issues here and tolerable seems to strike the right balance. Certainly, you want to make sure that the kind of buildings that are most unsafe are the ones that are remediated first, and removing a tolerable guideline risks buildings with only minor imperfections being treated exactly the same as the ones with the most dangerous cladding. I think that the Bill, as drafted, seems sensible and obviously we will look at the regulations as to how “tolerable” is actually defined.
Sean Woodcock
Q
Ben Hopkinson: The fact is that there has been good progress—although it is not perfect and it is not done yet. I think that the Bill is useful in contributing to the remaining cases that are outstanding. Certainly, having 40% or 45% of homes completely remediated already is, I think, good progress being made. I did not say that it was done.
Sean Woodcock
Q
Ben Hopkinson: These kinds of tasks necessarily take time. It would be brilliant if you could snap your fingers and remediate all of the buildings really quickly. Unfortunately, there are inherent bottlenecks in capacity and skills—on which good progress has been made on resolving. However, it is not resolved completely yet. I suspect that with this Bill and more time, more buildings will be remediated.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q
On centres, we heard this morning that Manchester, for example, has 129 buildings that have not been touched yet. That demonstrates that this is not just a London issue but a nationwide one. Equally, in London the building of high-rise properties has virtually come to a halt. In your opinion, is that because of the constraints that we are putting on them, to which this Bill will add, or is it because of the lack of skills? Alternatively, is it other costs or something else that we are not aware of? Will this Bill that we are considering end up causing further delays? I know that is a complicated question, but this is where we are coming from.
Sam Dumitriu: Ben, you published a paper on this yesterday.
Ben Hopkinson: Yes, I had a paper out two days ago about this.
It is important to remember that the macroeconomic conditions right now are not that favourable to housing. We have high build-cost inflation and high interest rates. That is a complete reversal of the situation 10 years ago. Yet, while we have a worsening macroeconomic environment, we are also seeing an increased burden on construction. Just in the past four or five years we have seen biodiversity net gain requirements, the residential property developer tax, the building safety levy, the second staircase requirement and the future home standard. All of those are burdens and all have a cost. Individually, they might be justified, but taken together we have seen a complete slowdown in new construction, especially in London, where over the past two years starts have been running at about 10% of the housing target.
These are the worst conditions for housebuilding in London since the second world war. We have to be honest about what new builds can be expected to pay for. It is not like there are infinite amounts that can be taken for Government priorities. In London specifically, my modelling found that 57% of the clearing price of a new build flat is downstream of Government policy. If we are building only 10% of the target, have a desperate housing shortage and new homes are inherently safer than older homes, we have to be realistic about the burdens that we are placing and work on easing them. I think that the Bill will not have that much of an impact on new builds—it is more about existing properties—so I am not really concerned about that.
Bob Blackman
Q
Sam Dumitriu: There are two real channels through which this could further increase costs. One would be about access to capital. If you are a developer and it turns out that you have to do some remediation works, that comes from your balance sheet, which means you do not have that money to invest in future projects. The extent to which that is a constraint is up in the air: if you are a developer that mainly focuses on London, you probably have capital to spare, and you are returning money to your shareholders anyway because of all the other problems that Ben has just described. The other concern would be about further cost inflation: increasing demand for those skilled workers will have knock-on impacts. However, I do not think they will be particularly large.
There is a broader point about the way we treat development as a cash cow. One of the problems is that politicians of all parties tend to shy away from raising taxes through the most visible means. There is the famous quote, I think from a French economist, that the art of taxation is plucking the goose with the least hissing. We tend to look for places where taxation can be done off the books—where we can fund spending in ways that are not particularly visible. We saw at the Budget—I welcome this—greater scrutiny by the Treasury of what goes into our energy bills, because we have kind of treated energy bills as a source of taxation.
The Chair
May I steer you back to what the Bill is about and to the questions, rather than a much more general view?
Sam Dumitriu: I am just saying that if we want to place cost burdens on developers, we need to be transparent about when there is a strong justification for doing so. At the moment, I think the justifications in this Bill make a lot more sense than those for many of the other burdens we place on developers.
James Asser
Q
One problem that we face on the back of the cladding scandal is that so many of the buildings we are dealing with are very new. As I was telling the Committee earlier, I have five tower blocks evacuated, with hundreds of people homeless. All those blocks are under 10 years old. Naturally, all the neighbouring developments are now questioning whether they are safe, because of their similar age, even though they are different buildings by different developers.
People have to trust that new buildings are safely built, but they are looking over their shoulder when new development comes along—you see a lot of that now. Although I understand your point, to sell and develop, you need trust for those new buildings; people need to be able to say, “I’m going to move into them.” Where do we factor that in? A big part of the cladding scandal is that it has stretched into so many new builds. Logically, you should be right, but there is that problem.
Ben Hopkinson: I am well aware of the somewhat justified concerns about quality in new builds, especially given that new builds are expected to fund all these different priorities, and corners are sometimes cut on certain issues. However, just think about what new builds now have that older buildings do not: no flammable materials on façades; they all go through the Building Safety Regulator; and they all have sprinklers, wet risers for water all the way up, firefighting lifts, smoke ventilation, three fire doors between a flat and an exit, and two means of escape. There have also been certain changes to the way that fire brigades handle large incidents. Taken together, I think you can feel pretty confident that new builds are safer than existing buildings.
Sarah Coombes
Q
Part of the Bill is about holding product manufacturers liable. A lot of Government money has gone to fixing this, and developers have also put in money, but we feel that product manufacturers so far have not played their part in the equation to fix this safety crisis. Do you have any comments on that part of the Bill in terms of getting all this stuff sorted and fixing some issues you have raised?
Sam Dumitriu: One concern when you are trying to work out who is really liable for a problem is that there are often a lot of cooks. Cladding materials that could be used safely in certain contexts have often been used in the wrong context, and in that case you would not want the liability to fall on the manufacturer.
One of the reasons why this has been a slow process is that some of the things we are dealing with are very complicated. Sometimes, you are dealing with people who have left the country and found ways of avoiding things, which is not acceptable, but you are also dealing with cases where there is genuine professional disagreement. In those cases, you do not want people responding to that by coming up with a done decision that is not necessarily correct.
Ben Hopkinson: I echo that. Clearly, manufacturers have not been contributing to the remediation, and there are definitely instances where they should have. I have one broad concern. If a cladding manufacturer has been mis-selling or was not following the rules and regulations in place at the time, they should absolutely pay, and it is good that the Bill is holding them to account. But if the manufacturer followed all the Government guidelines at the time, it is a little bit more complicated, because you do not want to do too much retrospective liability increasing. That will make people unsure: “If I follow all the Government guidelines and regulations right now, but something that neither the Government nor any of the manufacturers or developers foresees then happens, am I on the hook for that?”
There has to be some limit to these retrospective claims, because they destroy investor confidence and any attempts to build new buildings. If you can be held liable even if you followed all the rules in place at a time, why would you want to manufacture building products or build the homes we desperately need? If a cladding manufacturer mis-sold a product or was clearly engaged in corporate malfeasance, they should be punished, and money should be recouped from them. But if they were acting honestly and following the rules at the time, that is a much more difficult circumstance.
When we are changing the standards, this becomes a Government burden and should in turn be funded from general taxation, if we think as a society, “These are changes we should make to buildings.” We do not want retrospective attempts to take back money from people who were following the rules, because that just leads to people not wanting to invest in the first place.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
You have less than a minute.
Ben Hopkinson: If they are running the risk of still having excessive liabilities even if they follow all the rules in place at a time, they might not choose to sell to or invest in the UK at all. We do have to be careful there. If they are engaged in malpractice or mis-selling, we should absolutely go after them.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Alexander Cook gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Alexander Cook: I am Alexander Cook, the managing director for special projects at Vistry. I oversee the group’s building safety remediation programme.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Alexander Cook: First, on behalf of Vistry, we have been at the forefront since the tragic events of Grenfell in 2017 to make sure we are proactively managing and liaising with building owners. We signed the pledge in 2022 and the developer remediation contract in 2023. To date, 51% of our developer buildings started are completed. It is worth noting that, if 27 buildings had not had delays from blockers this year, we would have been at 70%. I can give some real world examples from our experience of where that has happened.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Alexander Cook: The targets were always a stretch. There are a number of developers that have achieved it, as per the remediation acceleration group data that is issued in the quarterly reports. There are challenges across all of these projects. These are multi-stakeholder projects, so you have fire engineers, responsible entities, RTMs, managing agents, lawyers and project managers. When you try to go back and forth with each of these parties, throw in a scope dispute or an RTM dissolves, and you have to go to a freeholder.
Good progress has been made across the industry, and we are at 51% across the board. The majority of those are sitting in the top right quadrant. To date, good progress has been made, and Vistry has been working proactively with all its buildings to move this forward, but there is still a way to go. We are confident that next year we will be able to get a lot of these things moved forward with some of the support we have had from the MHCLG.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Alexander Cook: Vistry has a dedicated special projects team with funding allocated to remediation, so it is a priority for us that does not take away from the day job. We have, however, had challenges on the new-homes side with Building Safety Regulator applications, which have delayed delivering those homes for up to nine months. We obviously acknowledge that residents need safe buildings, and that is the priority, but some of those statutory approvals are where the blockers have been.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Alexander Cook: We have seen improvements. Of our applications? Not yet. We have had seven remediations applications submitted, all of which had time extensions and three of which are now approved, so we can see the backlog starting to come down. We have not had a fast application or a statutory timeframe application as yet, but we know industry colleagues that have, so we can see the improvements that have been made. Hopefully, going into next year, their recruitment will improve and their capacity and consistency of decisions will help all of us move forward.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Alexander Cook: We support the co-operation of all authorities and the fact that they have to issue their statement. From my reading of the Bill and the proposals, Homes England is going to be the auditing authority of the fire risk appraisal of external walls, which is dictating the scope. The way it works in the developer remediation contract is that MHCLG will be the auditor of the FRAEW. If there is a dispute between the parties, it is the deciding function. It would seem logical that Homes England performs that function if that is the proposal in the Bill.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Alexander Cook: We welcome the changes on manufacturer redress and section 149. That will help make sure that all responsible parties are held to account and share the costs. It will not make any difference in terms of us accelerating our works and delivering what we need to. It just means that the funding at some point will be recovered and will help the future growth of homes, which Vistry is uniquely placed to do as part of the Government’s affordable housing programme.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Alexander Cook: The clarity of the section 149 changes, especially for reliance and the evidence required to hold manufacturers to account.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Alexander Cook: We support the standardisation of the FRAEW methodology and the recent changes to that for the “tolerable” risk changing as well. We will always see subjectivity in fire engineers’ opinions. The auditing by Homes England will hopefully control some of that. There is always more that could be done in terms of charters and control of fire engineers. I think the more the industry has, that will help.
There are a lot of examples where we have had conflicting fire engineers’ opinions in both directions, increasing and decreasing scope, but they are independent of Vistry, so they are not controlled by us. They are appointed, but they follow their own charter’s ethics and morals and set the scope outside of any other interests.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Alexander Cook: Yes. I believe there are chartered fire engineers out there, and that makes sense for them.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Alexander Cook: I think fire engineers should be, as they are now. Improvements could always be made in terms of the fire assessors, and that could be done through the Bill, with guidance on clarifying those roles, especially for FRAEWs.
Darren Paffey
Q
Alexander Cook: There is definitely no “unwilling”. Everyone wants to remediate and they want to get to the same goal. People want to co-operate, but it is not necessarily about co-operating; it is about their response times. When so many parties are involved, maybe changes to the Bill could introduce a stricter turnaround time from responsible entities, and that might introduce acceleration. For us, one of the particular delays and blockers is where you have fire engineers, lawyers and responsible managing agents taking a little bit longer to get through all of those before they actually get a response. When you multiply that by the hundreds of buildings, it soon adds up. The changes to the Bill will help, but I think there is still a way to go.
Darren Paffey
Q
Alexander Cook: It could be. A lot of the things that we come up against with lawyers are in terms of how the remedial works contract is drafted. If you think of construction contracts, it would not be unreasonable for there to be definitions of delay. Rather than just having “a reasonable excuse”, which is a bit broad, you could have specifics, and then there could be timeframes related to some of those, which would help to accelerate buildings where the responsible entities are not performing.
Peter Fortune
Q
Alexander Cook: I cannot comment widely on the market—that is not my speciality area—but I can say that we have seen that safety is a factor in residents’ requirements, which is completely justified. We have also had experiences in London, as I said earlier, where delays to projects have then affected the supplier demand, in terms of where people are available—what flats, what height, and so on—across the UK. Ultimately, the market has slowed in London, particularly due to the regulator’s decisions that have not allowed us to get on site. With our dedicated team on the remediation side, it has not affected the delivery, as such; if we were able to proceed, we would have.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank you very much on behalf of the Committee for your evidence. We will take a short break before the next panel.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from Ian Abley and Steve Day. We have until 4.20 pm for this panel. Could I ask you to introduce yourselves briefly for the record?
Steve Day: Thanks very much for your time today. I am Steve Day. I am a building safety campaigner, and have a national campaign called buildingsafetyscheme.org. There are notes applicable to my evidence on the website.
Ian Abley: Good afternoon, Chair. I am Ian Abley. I used to be a site architect, and then, after Grenfell, I started working for the Fire Protection Association. I have spent most of my life trying to work out what “properly build” is in the first place.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Steve Day: I will take that from a leaseholder’s perspective. I am a leaseholder in a block of flats in south-east London, in Woolwich. We have highly combustible Euroclass E on our fire shafts, which is the second most combustible material being retained under PAS 9980; it is banned on new buildings. The Association of British Insurers has confirmed that there will be permanently high insurance if these combustibles are left on.
We have two fire reports. One was commissioned by the building owner and the builder, and it basically said, “Leave the panels in place,” without any fire performance test evidence to show the risk of leaving it on. Then the residents raised £4,300 to do a review of that fire risk assessment and it said, “These panels are dangerous. These must come off.” Both are valid under PAS. The building owner has clearly stated in writing that they will choose the cheaper of the two reports—the one that leaves the dangerous panels on the sole means of escape, using PAS as justification.
PAS has two flaws. First, it ignores building regulations at the time of construction. Building regulations are the baseline for the fire safety order. The fire brigade operates on the assumption that the building regulations at the time of construction are complied with. If you have a remediation standard that does not really look into these building regulation breaches, you can see why the insurers are giving us permanently high insurance—in addition, of course, our insurance doubled with RAAC. We have £6,000 a year service charges, and because of these retained panels on our sole means of escape under PAS, we have no chance of getting the charges back down, so no, the Bill is not helping us.
I do welcome the parts of the Bill that are useful. This is a very difficult subject for me, because I lost one of my best friends, Amanda Walker, who worked on my building safety scheme campaign with the Earl of Lytton and actually presented to Parliament. She was so taken down by the building safety crisis that she took her own life. To be clear, the coroner said it was misadventure, so I am not saying that I know more than the coroner, but I know how badly the building safety crisis affected her and ruined her life. I want to pay tribute to her and to the Government for recognising that part of her campaign as an enfranchised leaseholder was to be protected from cladding costs. They have announced that that is happening, so that is good. The new legal duty to remediate is good, as is the remediation backstop.
The key problem is that the Building Safety Act is identifying building safety risks, but the remediation standard to deal with the problem is watering it down to a tolerable standard that does not recognise as an issue building regulation breaches at the time of construction, which are unlawful breaches. Secondly, it does not require any fire performance test evidence to know the risk of leaving banned material—combustibles are banned on buildings above 11 metres. The insurance is high, as the ABI has confirmed in its evidence to other Committees. Leaseholders are in a terrible position. I will let Ian come in now, but thank you very much for the question.
Ian Abley: I want to stress that leaseholders entered a market where there was a constant, which they expected to have. They may never have read the building regulations, but the constant was always there and sensible. That was requirement B4(1), which said that a building should “adequately” resist the spread of fire up its external walls, which you would expect. My mum would expect that; my sons would expect that. That has been a constant since the Building Act 1984 split the approved document from the requirements.
A difficulty is being replicated in clause 44 of this Bill, however. “Adequate” was never defined except in the approved document, and now “tolerable” is being substituted for the word adequate, which is worse. The failure after Grenfell was not to interrogate what was “adequate”. Since then, we have found out—through great effort, a long period of time and a huge inquiry—that class zero was the problem, because the approved document contained approval for combustible cladding. It did not contain approval for combustible insulation, so it does not explain the defects over 30 years of construction found by people such as Andy Roe, as he described this morning.
The substitution of “tolerable” for “adequate” just leaves that issue free-floating. While the Building Safety Regulator is being given sharper teeth and may be able to bite better, it is being muzzled by the introduction of the concept of tolerability in place of the concept of adequacy.
I would argue that the only Secretary of State post-Grenfell to grapple with the adequacy problem was James Brokenshire. He did a very good job—actually, an extraordinarily clear-headed job—before he sadly died of cancer, which was to introduce modifications to regulation 7, which is about materials and workmanship. He took the problem out of the approved document and stuck it in regulation 7, so that builders could not ignore it.
The difficulty with the approved document arises from section 7 of the Building Act 1984, which means that the approved document is non-mandatory but nevertheless statutory guidance. So you can ignore it, provided you satisfy the requirements.
Let me illustrate the two things that the Bill needs to grapple with and should sort out. There are all of the defects that builders have created by ignoring the approved document and therefore not complying with the requirement, such as putting combustible insulation in high-rise buildings. Since 2006, that has been clearly prevented under paragraph 12.7 of fire safety regulations, and prior to that builders should not have been using combustible insulation on high-rise buildings. That is made difficult because the approved document had a fundamental flaw, which originated in class zero; the wording did not change from 1976 right up to the Grenfell Tower fire.
That test in 1987 was being given a water-cooled frame to test thermoplastics, in other words the kind of cladding that was on Grenfell Tower—aluminium composite material. The problem materialised at the Garnock Court fire in Irvine in 1999. At that time, Nick Raynsford did not remove class zero from the approved document or modify it, and nor did anybody else after that, despite the Government’s own unpublished research on the subject. Not only was class zero known to be wrong at the time, but the policy was sustained all the way through the code for sustainable homes—when insulation was being pushed, including in high-rise buildings—right the way up to the Grenfell Tower fire, when its consequences became obvious.
Class zero served as misguidance. What the Bill needs to do is to define what “adequate” is, and not sell the PAS to the people who would like to open this process up to a subjective view of tolerability.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Steve Day: No. We say that rather than incremental improvement of the protections, we would like all leaseholders to be protected from all costs related to building safety defects. What we say is that if building regulation breaches occurred at the time of its construction, you did not get what you paid for. The builders should not be allowed, under PAS, to get away with that; they should remediate to the standard of the current building regulations. That is not betterment; that is punishment for breaking the law at the time of construction.
Secondly, if the regulations have changed post-Grenfell and the defects are a result of regulations changing regarding things that were lawful at the time of construction, we say that the buildings affected should be remediated to as low a standard as is reasonably practicable, with fire performance test evidence for those combustibles in buildings above 11 metres.
To answer your specific point, what is happening in the Bill is that we have protections that provide no protection at all for buildings below 11 metres. The under 11 metre fund has closed, so there is no protection. There are partial protections for those that have more than six properties, and no protection at all for non-cladding costs. Then we have the risk of multiple remediation. Under PAS, the fire risk assessor is encouraged to deem some remediation tolerable without any evidence to know the risk of leaving it on. Then it says, “But, by the way, if you can, you should bring the risk down from tolerable to low,” so the PAS is encouraging you as a fire risk assessor to undermine “tolerable”. Then, it says in the 2026 version, which is the latest one in force, “When you do a refurbishment, you should potentially do a bit more, because that tolerable standard is a little bit suspect. Do a bit more.” The PAS itself does not trust its own definition of tolerability.
On the other side of that, if it is deemed tolerable, under a highly subjective assessment, these fire risk assessments are done every year and can recommend that the PAS assessment is redone potentially every five years, like EWS1, which is expensive in itself, but we may have to fork out another 40 or 50 grand in five years’ time. Then, with all the defects deemed tolerable—remember it is ignoring building regulation breaches at time of construction and leaving defects on without any evidence to know the risk—there is a good chance that tolerable risk might become medium or high under the PAS for a subsequent remediation.
This comes on to my real worry, which, as a leaseholder, is saleability and insurability. The ABI has condemned PAS. It was excluded from the steering group, which is questionable, because it has been saying for a long time that PAS is not good enough in its current form and needs to take into account the risk post Grenfell of the genie being let out the bottle and people not trusting building regulation compliance. Let me explain why. These are the June 2024 figures of life-endangering building defect rates in four of our top house builders—it was on BBC News, and it is published on the Government website. Barratt Redrow has a 35% life-endangering defect rate as per the developer contracts, Bellway 43%, Taylor Wimpey 77% and Crest Nicholson 69%. These defects have been all over the built environment for the last 30 years.
We should not be having a tolerable assessment that says, “Oh, by the way, if it’s deemed tolerable now, it may either be upgraded to high in the future, or you need to do a little bit more later on when you do a refurbishment and we need to push it down.” All of these are extra costs. If we combine the threat of rolling, unlimited remediations, the cost of all the protections that partially protect and or include no protection whatsoever for buildings under 11 metres, and the 11 metre cladding fund closure, you can see that the simplest solution is to protect all leaseholders. In doing so, we would actually be able to ensure that there would be certainty. I think the definition of permanently complete on a remediation should be that the insurance comes down so the extra building defect premium is removed and the property is sellable.
There is also the risk of the market concerns around this. There is potential for significant financial crisis-type litigation in respect of mortgage-backed securities. I came from an investment banking background and worked in IT in Lehman Brothers and JP Morgan. We look at risk. If you have a load of buildings in which all the defects have been ignored by a watered-down remediation standard and all the defects have been left on without any fire performance test evidence, do you not think that the insurers or the lenders might have picked that up? They are watching today. What I am saying is that if we want to contain this, we really need to recognise that those alarming defect rates I have just quoted to you, which are all available in the public domain, mean that there could be litigation in relation to the UK mortgage-backed securities that are sold to anyone who wants to buy them. Credit, insurance and other derivatives related to UK mortgage-backed securities could blow up.
My buildingsafetyscheme.org team and I have analysed the prospectuses of some of the leading bonds in mortgage-backed securities, and some do not even mention the credit risk of the non-cladding liability; some mention the cladding liability, but do not mention the non-cladding liability; and some do not mention any liability at all. These are all linked to UK residential mortgages, so they are not being honest in the documentation that they sell bonds on. There is a problem here.
Gareth Bacon
I am very conscious that I have taken up half the session.
Steve Day: Yes, I am sorry I went on a bit.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Steve Day: Yes, I did not actually say it, but it was another element that I was happy about. The cladding manufacturers largely have escaped liability. I do not know if you followed our campaign with the Earl of Lytton in the House of Lords. We initially had a remediation scheme, which was trying to make developers pay for breaches at the time of construction with a wide construction industry levy, which did bring in construction manufacturers. That aligns with our approach, but there are some areas where you could extend the levy. The build-to-rent sector, for instance, has largely escaped it. They could contribute, given that they are building. Build to rent would be an area.
Before the Committee, we had a look at the latest status of developers and house builders. The top 10 have £24 billion in net assets, largely due to hoarding land banks and making significant returns to shareholders. We looked at just how much were share buybacks and dividends. For instance, Barratt Redrow has announced an intention to return £400 million to shareholders. With £24 billion plus £400 million, they can afford to pay a little more to cover all these leaseholders. On the buildingsafetyscheme website, you can see a breakdown of all the information that I am giving here, including the items of the mortgage-backed securities—we are going to publish those so that everyone can see the exposure due to bad building in this country.
I really encourage the Committee to look at whether freeholders may evade their responsibilities. There have been certain restructuring events that you might want to consider, which may mean that you have a good bank/bad bank scenario as we had at Lehman Brothers, where some assets may be transferred to the bad bank, and then there is no money to pay the remediation liabilities. I would recommend looking at anti-avoidance measures, potentially as an amendment to the Bill.
Sarah Gibson
Q
My worry is that we have seen poor construction and a race to the bottom over the last 30 years in the UK construction industry, and now the Government are hoping to build large amounts of new housing. How do we make sure that the housing that we are building now will not be the retrofits of 2050, and that we will not be in the same position then? What key things do we need to be doing to make sure that this does not happen again? Is it a question of building control? Is it a question of enforcement? What do we do to make sure that we do not end up here again?
Ian Abley: It is a question of regulation 7. You already have the tools to do it. They are adequate. Building regulation requirement B4(1) said that the external walls should be adequate to resist the spread of fire. That is still the case. The definition of “adequate” is the thing that is missing. But that forces you into a world of very straightforward thresholds of what is and what is not safe.
The problem with tolerability, to my mind, is not so much that it has not collapsed into a low. If the high and medium-risk buildings that already exist are declared as such to the Building Safety Regulator, they have to go through building remediation, which puts them back into the building regulation loop. The structure of PAS actually encourages anybody with a medium or high-risk building who cannot afford to remediate to shop around and find a fire engineer who will give them a “tolerable” report, and they magically get to avoid the building regulation process entirely.
Regardless of David Crowder’s intent for setting up a structure that looks vaguely like something that the Health and Safety Executive would do—with the carrot of risk going from unacceptable through tolerable and down to acceptable—what PAS does is encourage remediation avoidance. Any impecunious building owner is going to find it far cheaper just to employ a fire engineer who will give them a “tolerable”. I have seen that on an epic scale with a signatory to the developer remediation contract.
It is a beautifully connived process where everyone seems to be doing their job, but all that happens is the risk gets accepted by the building owner and then the process stops. The estates of buildings fall off the statistics, and it looks like the remediation problem is not as big as was first thought. If clause 44 mandates the tolerability wheeze into the legislation instead of defining “adequate”, you will see that right the way down to the 11-metre height.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Ian Abley: As Giles Grover said, you need a technical standard that is the legally minimum adequate of what is requirement B4(1). Why would you employ an incompetent fire engineer to give you a rubbish report? The builders who have the money will employ the most competent fire engineers who will use their skill, knowledge and experience, but their behaviour is another thing—they are just acting like mercenaries.
Steve Day: We are seeing that at Royal Artillery Quays. You have one fire engineer saying, “It is safe to leave these panels on,” without caring about justifying it with evidence, which he puts in his report, and another two fire engineers saying, “These are dangerous. The are banned on new buildings for a reason.” The building owner just chooses which report they want. We spent £4,300 of our own money on this—that is how much we cared about getting the right opinion—only to be met with a terse email saying, “Sorry, we don’t have to listen to you because of PAS.” That is the problem we have.
We have to do the two reforms on the buildingsafetyscheme.org website. Please look at those, because they are what the country needs, and they are what the banks, lenders and insurers need. You cannot put this back in the box; the insurers and lenders will not let the Government do it. You need to protect all leaseholders, you need to deal with building regulations breaches at the time of construction, and you need fire performance test evidence to know the risk of leaving things on and, otherwise, to take them off. Only leave them on if you have evidence—that is the rule. If they did that, we would have safer buildings. We are not remediating buildings to a permanent state, either, because of the rolling remediations. These are big issues that we need to resolve.
Ian Abley: Could I make a point about the insurers? Building regulations are not about property protection, and they never have been. PAS 9980 is not about property protection. The insurers have their own standard, which corrected the error of class 0, once they had worked out that it was an error and the inquiry had come to a conclusion, and it adopted James Brokenshire’s standard. The insurers cannot ignore health and life safety, which is all the building regulations have to achieve. The insurers only want Brokenshire’s law for life safety. They do not need anything else for property protection, because there is nothing else. Brokenshire’s law was reasonably practicable and low risk. PAS 9980:2026 itself recognises Brokenshire’s law as low risk. It does not actually name it; it just copies and pastes the text.
The PAS has avoided one of the other aspects of building requirement B4(1): it only deals with the combustibility of the walls and the compartmentation and cavity barriers around windows. It does not deal with the conflagration problem of radiant heat from one building to another, so it cannot claim to be building requirement B4(1). As far as I can see, PAS 9980 was written as a way to undermine James Brokenshire’s law when the calls for proportionality came in, because people were bleating that James Brokenshire’s law was too onerous. It is not. It is the reasonably practicable thing to do for life safety.
Steve Day: The problem—I will not say too much, I promise—
Sarah Gibson
I probably ought to bring it to a halt, because I am conscious of the time.
The Chair
There are no further questions from Members, so I thank you both for your evidence.
Sarah Gibson
If that is the case, Chair, I am quite happy for Steve to finish his statement. I was just conscious that if someone else was trying to come in, we were running out of time. Sorry, Steve. I did not mean to interrupt you.
Steve Day: Thank you. I really appreciate that.
Ian Abley: If not, I had a question for the Minister.
Steve Day: Do you mind if I just do mine?
The Chair
Okay. We will have to move on, because there are no further questions from Members. Thank you both very much for your evidence.
Examination of witness
Dame Judith Hackitt gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dame Judith Hackitt. We have until 4.40 pm for this panel. Dame Judith, could you briefly introduce yourself for the record?
Dame Judith Hackitt: Yes. I am Dame Judith Hackitt. I authored the independent review of building safety and fire regulations immediately after the Grenfell Tower fire, which led to the series of recommendations that formed the Building Safety Act. Since then, I have been chairing the industry safety steering group, working on driving culture change within the built environment sector.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: This remediation Bill builds on a number of things that we have learned since the enactment of the Building Safety Act 2022. I am very supportive of many of the measures in it, although there are a few other things that would help enormously. I think it goes a long way towards addressing some of the shortcomings that we have learned of in the last few years, but there are some other things that we could do to make it move even faster.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: With pleasure. The most important thing that we need to do within this remediation Bill is to give certainty to residents, in particular, who have been waiting a very long time to know whether their buildings need remediation and whether they are safe. Although some of the recommendations move us in the right direction, they do not take away the uncertainty and the room that exists for people to debate in court or through lawyers what needs to be done and by whom. Unless we address that and give residents certainty, we are missing an important opportunity in this Bill.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: I certainly think it is open to too much interpretation. As I have shared with lots of people, we now have the ability to see what other people have done around the world, so we can see that there is perhaps a better way to do that. I have recently been reviewing the activities in Victoria in Australia, and they have completed all their remediation. Granted, it is on a different scale from ours—they had to remediate in the region of 1,000 buildings—but it is all complete. It has been completed to a standard that was set centrally, about which there is no dispute, and everyone has bought into it.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: Yes, I do. Defining tolerable risk in statute and getting buy-in from residents and other stakeholders, including investors and insurers, is key to making progress. That would ensure not only that residents feel reassured that we are working to a consistent standard, but that we have a basis on which to rebuild confidence in the markets in our building stock.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: Yes.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: Yes. It would need to be a risk framework for all existing buildings that are in scope.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: I personally do not have a view one way or the other on whether Homes England is the right place to put that. What I do have a view on is that it needs to be an agreed risk framework that everyone has bought into. It needs to be a body that has the technical competence to oversee that and, in cases where there is a dispute, to overrule that and agree the standard to which the buildings are going to be remediated.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: I think it is impossible to characterise in one word. It is a very mixed picture still. I am going to focus on buildings in occupation, because we have moved a long way when it comes to new build. The new regulatory framework and the way in which that drives certain requirements has moved us a long way in terms of building the right culture for new build.
The big problem that we have to address, and which the Bill is clearly aimed at, is the lack of progress at the right pace when dealing with buildings that are already in occupation. There, I think the culture is very much one of diffuse and unclear responsibilities, even now. That is exacerbated by a lack of competence and a lack of knowledge among the people who are deemed responsible. The sad part is that because of all that, legal disputes take precedence over taking care of residents and reassuring them that their safety is of primary concern.
Florence Eshalomi
I will leave it there because I am mindful that other colleagues want to come in.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: The part about fire engineers’ competence and how we assess that is being addressed separately from the Bill. We already know that there is more work we need to do there, and I am involved in that.
Let us be clear, however, that we are never going to get to a point where fire engineers always agree on a single solution, because the nature of the beast is such that different solutions may be arrived at that give an acceptable level of risk. That is one of the reasons why we have focused on making all the regulation outcome-based so that it gives people the opportunity to look at different routes and so on.
In the cases where disagreements occur, it is really important to have a body that can stop that becoming a long-term delaying process and a dispute through the courts, and focuses on agreeing what is going to be done, getting it done and letting other things play out while speeding up the process whereby residents get to a position where they can both feel safe in their building and, indeed, sell their properties and move on if that is what they want to do.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: I am not here to suggest for one minute that we should copy everything that has been done by Cladding Safety Victoria in Australia. However, when you look at the series of measures that it has put in place, there is a lot that we can learn. I have already talked about the agreed risk framework that everyone buys into. In addition, to speed up the process, it arrived at a mechanism whereby, when people cannot agree on what needs to be done, progress is not slowed.
Progress still takes place: the Government pay for it, but they take over the right from the building owners to recover costs from the parties who are held to be responsible. The Government are therefore acting in the intermediary space, not as the funder for work that others fail to do. It is a model that we could learn from, of that I am convinced.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: Yes, I do. As I said, I am very supportive of what the Bill is trying to do, but in a number of areas we are missing an opportunity to go a little further on writing specifics into primary legislation, rather than leaving it to guidance that is open to interpretation and without certainty.
Peter Fortune
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: Yes.
Peter Fortune
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: I cannot answer the second part of that question, I am afraid. We have to get to a landing on what is an acceptable level of risk. I know that will not be easy, but I think it has to be done centrally, rather than allowing these debates and different interpretations to continue. They are holding up progress, of that there is no doubt.
Peter Fortune
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: Personally, I think the language is unfortunate. We need to be talking about life safety here. It must be an acceptable level of risk that does not put people’s lives at risk. Part of the debate is property loss versus life safety—what matters is life safety.
Peter Fortune
I do not understand what the reluctance is.
Dame Judith Hackitt: Neither do I.
Sean Woodcock
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: Is the question whether I think people are less committed to—
Sean Woodcock
My feeling at the time of the Grenfell disaster was that the view from the top down—from industry, Government, local authorities and so on—was that everything would be done, whatever the trade-offs, to ensure that this was sorted, the remediation happened and so on. As we get further away, there is a danger that the consensus and impetus have broken down slightly. Do you have any worries on that? Am I wrong to worry about that? Is it driving some of the issues?
Dame Judith Hackitt: You are absolutely right to worry about it, because we can look at many other industry sectors and see that, with the passage of time, the sense of urgency that follows a disaster tends to decay as you get further and further away from it. What we must never forget in this case is that we have no guarantee that this will not happen again.
The area where we are most at risk is with existing buildings because, as I have said, we have moved a long way. We have a new regime in place for new build, which I am confident sets new standards, and we have new rigour in place to ensure that buildings are built properly. We always knew that going back and addressing existing stock would be the challenge, but it would be unforgivable not to do that. Those are the buildings that affect existing residents the most, and they have been living with this for nearly 10 years.
Noah Law
Q
Dame Judith Hackitt: One of your colleagues spoke a moment ago about the need for trade-offs. I would not advocate prescription and fixed, inflexible definitions in relation to new build, where there is the opportunity to be creative and to innovate in the way we build, and where new things will come along that will enable us to do things in different ways. In the case of existing stock, where speed and the reassurance of residents are of paramount importance, having a very clear, non-disputable standard is really important.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank you for your evidence, Dame Judith. Thank you very much.
Examination of witness
Dr David Crowder gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr David Crowder: Good afternoon. My name is David Crowder, and I am a partner at DCCH Experts. Probably more relevant to this session is that I am the lead technical author for PAS 9980. I will not list my various other credentials as they are in my written evidence.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dr David Crowder: I will start by saying that my written evidence was not about the Bill; I am here for questions regarding PAS, because I am conscious that there has been a lot of debate about that. My personal view on remediation is that it has taken too long. I investigated Grenfell myself—I spent a year inside the tower, from when it was still burning. I do not want to see that again.
I have worked as fast as I can, and I know many other fire engineers who are, frankly, tired after 10 years of working flat-out on this. There are not enough of us. That is a sad side effect of fire engineering not being a very popular subject pre-Grenfell, and going from being a bit of a sideshow in the industry to suddenly being the thing that everyone demands for a building project. There is now movement to try to increase the number of courses. Given that my qualifications and training took well in excess of 10 years to achieve, I am not particularly optimistic about how much faster things can go unless there is a fundamentally different approach, but I support remediation taking place as quickly as possible.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dr David Crowder: A different approach. Fire engineers are currently capacity-limited. As I say, everyone I speak to in fire engineering is doing everything they can.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dr David Crowder: No. That is the short answer. Most of my work is in disputes, legal cases and prosecutions. I am well aware that there is a significant degree of panic about meeting that deadline among the good building owners and developers, because they take it seriously. The practicalities involved make it extremely challenging for those who are willing. For those who are not, I do not hold much, if any, hope of them meeting that deadline.
Gareth Bacon
Q
The Bill concentrates on cladding. To a degree, that is understandable, because we all saw the pictures of Grenfell and the fire going up the outside. One of the reasons why the stay put policy that the fire brigade deployed in the early stages of the fire failed utterly is the breaches inside the building, as opposed to just the cladding going up the outside. Do you think the Bill could have been expanded to cover fire remediation internally as well as externally?
Dr David Crowder: I do. However, I would suggest there is an equally acute problem with internal fire protection as there is with cladding. There is a difference between what was expected of buildings built 10, 20 or 50 years ago versus those built today. I am aware of the criticism, but the PAS has tried to consider buildings of all ages by taking a technology-agnostic view of risk to try to work out what is safe enough—I am sure we will come back to that. We use the term “tolerable”, and again I am sure we will come back to that.
I have been privy to a lot of this, and the difficulty with internal compartmentation is that if you ask a compartmentation specialist or passive fire protection contractor to look at a building, they will insist on current best practice installations because that is part of their professional requirements. There is not currently an equivalent mechanism by which you can look at fire stopping or a fire door that is 20 or 30 years old and reach a conclusion as to whether it still provides adequate performance or needs to be replaced for good reason, as opposed to simply being an old door.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dr David Crowder: Well, no. Having written it, I am supportive of the standard and what it is trying to achieve. Again, I refer the Committee to my written evidence. The standard is just that, a standard. It is a document. It is not the same as its users. It does not have the power to police its users. As Dame Judith mentioned, a lot of work is going on about the regulation and professionalisation of the fire engineering industry. I can only support that. I am a chartered engineer registered with the Engineering Council, and I have to comply with the ethical behavioural principles of the Engineering Council as part of my work. Those include integrity, honesty and pushing back on anyone who might try to persuade me to behave in a certain way.
Chartered engineers are not the only game in town. There are also incorporated engineers and engineering technicians. They all do different things. Chartered engineers tend to be in leadership, big-picture positions. Incorporated engineers have a greater tendency to be doers—they are more middle-management level. Engineering technicians tend to do very intricate, detailed work. They do the sort of thing that a chartered engineer is not good at. Fire alarm technicians are a good example.
The key point is that they all have to sign up to the Engineering Council’s statement of ethical principles. Having that kind of registration across the board would be extremely helpful in providing confidence in how users are actually applying the PAS. We did a lot of work in how we rewrote the document we published in September to try to address the shortcomings. For example, we have been as strict as we can. Bear in mind, it is a voluntary standard. As it stands, it does not have any power, but we require that any deviation from what is in the standard is recorded in the report so that there is transparency.
Equally, if there is a difference of opinion where a customer, or whoever, commissions multiple FRAEWs—or one simply follows another chronologically—we now require the appraiser to say why they have a difference of opinion with the previous FRAEW. It is no longer a black-box environment where customers, or indeed leaseholders, are simply receiving FRAEWs, seeing that there is a different outcome and not understanding why. We have put a lot of work into trying to improve the transparency of the process.
Equally, we are bordering on hand-holding the appraisers through the process. We have defined the decision-making process that they have to follow at every stage to work through how they deal with uncertainty, to make sure that they are making good, conservative, worst-case assumptions where they do not know things, and only improving upon that once they have evidence that allows them to do so.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dr David Crowder: “Tolerable” is a word. “Adequate”, “reasonable”, “tolerable” or “good enough” could be used.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Dr David Crowder: I worry about the consequences of doing so. “Tolerable” and, equally, all the other words serve the same purpose, particularly when you think about health and safety law. The intention of the PAS was to support the fire safety order to enable risk assessment. I am sure we will come back to that in a second. “Tolerable” or “adequacy” obviously take into account the level of risk, which we can look at as an absolute level. Is risk high, medium or low?
The question of tolerability, which is similar to proportionality, or “as low as reasonably practicable” as appears in the Health and Safety at Work Act, relates to the ability to pay and what is within the duty holder’s gift to actually do in order to address risk. If Parliament decides to enshrine “tolerable” in law, that would have to be accompanied by some level of resource that puts the duty holders on the same playing field in terms of what they do to meet that bar.
That is because, for example, what a housing association with tens of thousands of properties can afford to do is very different from an individual family who have decided to make their investment pot a block of flats. I have dealt with customers who put all their life savings into building a block of flats, and it ended very tragically. Their ability to pay is not the same as a big housing association with tens of thousands of properties. That is the risk. Again, the PAS is simply trying to address a problem. It is a scientific, engineering-led process, but if we choose to set the bar at a particular level in terms of safety, we have to make sure that people can meet it.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Dr David Crowder: In terms of the original commission that was given to the British Standards Institution by what was then the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, it was written purely as a method for appraising the risk of external wall construction. This is responding to the Fire Safety Act amendment of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. A legal duty was created in the wake of Grenfell Tower to ensure that owners of existing buildings had a means by which they could carry out a risk assessment. Under article 50 of the fire safety order, there is a duty for the Secretary of State to provide guidance to enable risk assessments to be carried out.
Once the provision for risk assessing external walls was added, there needed to be guidance to fulfil that role. The PAS is not formally identified in that sense, but my personal view is that that is what it is for. It is not a design document, and it is not there to circumvent building regulations. It supports an entirely different branch of legislation. As has been mentioned by previous witnesses, if an FRAEW recommends building work, that work becomes subject to the building regulations, but that is distinct from what the PAS is doing. The PAS simply looks at the building in its current state and enables a decision to be made on whether or not something should need to be done. It is not an evaluation tool either—I know that RICS refer to it as part of their EWS1s. It is simply doing the job of appraising risk and the life safety impact of buildings.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Dr David Crowder: I do, yes. I take the view, which I know is somewhat different from that of some witnesses you heard from previously, that the ban reflects Government, and indeed the country at large, losing faith in the construction industry, and concluding that the industry cannot be trusted to work with combustible materials. In the building regulations, regulation 7 sits apart from the functional requirements under schedule 1. Those are all couched in terms of safety, whereas regulation 7 simply says, “Do not use combustible materials.” That is fine, and I do not have an issue with it, given the way that trust has fallen away, but I am confident that it is perfectly possible to build a safe external wall façade, despite it containing combustible materials.
I am equally confident, as I have seen examples, that just because an external façade is non-combustible, it does not make it safe. I have seen a nine-storey-high terracotta rainscreen with no cavity barriers and weak enclosure around the windows, which means that smoke is potentially ducted across the nine storeys of that building. It is non-combustible—great, but it is still a life risk to the residents in that building.
Florence Eshalomi
Q
Dr David Crowder: Again, I have not focused my interest on the Bill; I am concerned with the PAS. Currently, the Bill simply refers to the PAS, and the PAS gives a definition of whether a building is safe in terms of the risk of external fire. I know it is not for me to ask the questions, but I suppose there is a question to put back to those writing the Bill: are you seeking simply to limit the ability of any square metre of external wall to burn—to reduce its propensity to burn at all—or are you looking in the round at whether the people in the building are safe, in spite of the possibility of some fire spread?
This is where tolerability comes in. A number of public consultations have occurred around what people are content with. Let us start with buildings that comply with the building regulations as written right now, and buildings that have solid masonry wall construction. They are low risk, because the walls simply do not burn, so there is no hazard that anyone needs to concern themselves with in terms of the external walls. That does not mean that external fire spread will never occur, because you can still get window-to-window fire spread, but the walls will not make the problem worse.
If you have combustible material, the follow-on question is: how far does it go? How far up the wall could the fire spread if that combustible material was involved? Does it cross compartment lines, and is there therefore a likelihood of the fire going somewhere else? The final question then concerns the internal arrangements: if that spread should occur and covers a reasonable distance across the building, are there facilities for people to get out of the building?
We have taken a very scientific approach to it, and I am not sure it is conducive to legislation, to return to your question. There is probably a shorter, punchier way of doing it, but my fear, and the driver behind the way the PAS is written, is about giving people options and not assuming that everyone has the resources to do absolutely everything to mitigate risk.
Sarah Gibson
Q
You mentioned that, for fire engineers, control and signing up to ethical standards and so on is in the process of being done. One would therefore expect that fire assessors, who are, of course, more likely to be involved in the remediation we are talking about, would also be included in that regulation. My question is: do you think that the level of control over those applying the assessment and the ethical codes that go with it are sufficient to limit the issues we have seen around discrepancies? Is it more a question of enforcement than legislation for what is causing the discrepancies?
Dr David Crowder: I think that enforcement would help. The answer to your question lies not necessarily within “tolerable” but in the freedom that users have been given to simply reach different conclusions and walk away. That is what we have tried to clamp down on with the redraft.
By way of example, I review FRAEWs on occasion, and I am quite obviously well versed in what PAS 9980 says. We have risk tables in the PAS that give different risk ratings to different features of buildings, and I have seen instances where appraisers will quietly slip in that a feature of a building has a different risk rating from what the PAS says it should have, and that then flows through and changes their outcome. The new PAS—the 2026 edition—says that, for any deviation, including that, you have to declare in your report that you have done something different. With multiple appraisals, people now have to explain why they have reached a different conclusion.
I have seen instances in the past where appraisers are restricted by their professional indemnity insurance and all they can do is condemn combustible cladding. They will not be given professional indemnity insurance unless they condemn everything combustible and give the okay only on stuff that is non-combustible. I argue that it is an ethical problem that they are allowing their work to be influenced by a pressure other than the science and engineering—that needs to be declared. If that is the reason their report says something different from the previous one, they need to say that that is the case.
Equally, it might just be because they do not have the risk appetite. If it is simply risk appetite, they need to say that, so that people can take them to task and we can start getting some clarity. We have done everything we can to try to narrow the field, and I would like to see more appraisers being held to account when they are providing answers that people do not understand.
The additional thing is peer review. We have also prescribed in the 2026 edition that when an appraiser is reviewing somebody else’s FRAEW, they should not simply start again at the beginning, run through the whole process and then reach their own answer, which is likely to be different because different engineers have different views. We now positively say that they are instead expected to go through the other engineer’s work—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for this session. On behalf of the Committee I thank you for your evidence.
Examination of witness
Florence Eshalomi MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Minister. We have until 5.20 pm. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Florence Eshalomi: Good afternoon. I am the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. I am also the Minister of State with responsibility for homelessness, democracy, communities and faith. That includes building remediation.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Florence Eshalomi: One of the things that the Government have been looking at is the fact that PAS 9980—as the Committee may be aware—was designed and developed by the British Standards Institution and went through a rigorous consensus-based public consultation process. On balance, we feel that it provides a robust and proportionate, industry-recognised methodology for assessing the risk. I think it is fair to say that residents will see fire as not discriminating. However, it is a case of making sure that we are looking at the issues around a building’s external walls and the action needed to keep residents safe. That is at the forefront of everything that we are trying to do in this potentially quite long and technical-seeming piece of legislation.
The other thing is around looking at how PAS 9980 will be put into practice and into law to make sure that it is consistent with external wall requirements. There will be secondary legislation at a later stage to require that a fire risk appraisal of external walls be carried out. That will help to give clarity about how external walls should be assessed, and we hope that this will also give regulators a firm benchmark in terms of targeting or challenging any poor assessments.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Florence Eshalomi: One of the key things that we are trying to do is look at some of the other areas contained within the inquiry. We feel that this approach will be better in terms of making sure we are legislating on the key areas around the principle that the developer pays in terms of the levy and the additional measures for non-qualifying leaseholders. All those issues are coming to the forefront first.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Florence Eshalomi: This is an area that we are still keen to look at and are developing with leaseholders and insurance companies. You may be aware that the Financial Conduct Authority is going through a review at the moment on the issue of how remediation and reductions in risk are reflected in the pricing structure. My understanding is that the Treasury Committee is also looking at this. What we are seeking to do with this Bill is strengthen the confidence in the assessments’ decisions through the independent auditing of the FRAEWs, including powers to audit the assessments that conclude that no remediation is required.
With regard to the question of risk maybe being posed and assessed as tolerable, I will go back to some of the comments the Committee heard earlier. Essentially, we need to make sure that residents are safe, but a tolerable risk does not mean that a building is unsafe. Today’s evidence sessions have also highlighted some of the other areas in which leaseholders are rightly pushing us to go further in terms of some of the internal wall defects, which in some cases are causing some of the issues around insurance. I am hoping that during the passage of this Bill, we can look at some additional measures.
However, the building insurance premiums can sometimes reflect a range of areas, not just external wall fire risk: it could be claims for things such as flooding, water or other damage. I think that we need to look at the whole issue of building insurance as a package in the round, not just the external wall risk and the issue of what is and is not tolerable.
Gareth Bacon
Q
Florence Eshalomi: What we need to distinguish is the fact that PAS 9980 as it stands does not remove or replace the need for buildings to comply with building regulations; maybe we need to make that a lot clearer. This is around highlighting that any remediation work that needs to be carried out must also meet building regulations that may apply to that. Again, there is the technical aspect of the Bill, and what we are seeking to do with this legislation is make clearer who owns that risk. PAS 9980 and building regulations serve two entirely different purposes. We are very clear on what building regulations are doing in terms of the regulations for new buildings, whereas PAS 9980 considers the risk and tolerable risk of buildings as they stand now, looking at the critical issue around safety when it comes to life and to external walls.
On the question of whether we should revisit the whole issue of “tolerable”, that goes back to my response to your initial question. Across the sector and industry, we feel that PAS 9980, set by the British Standards Institution, strikes the right balance in trying to find a way forward through something that has been at an impasse for many years—successive Governments have tried to resolve this.
It is about how we get the best approach in terms of moving forward in a really complicated but important area that is affecting so many people up and down the country. They want a resolution and to know that if something goes wrong in their building, which a number of them have invested a lot of money in—sometimes their life savings—they know who they can go to to remediate that. A lot of them bought in good faith and they should not have to turn themselves into building experts just to know that the building they are living in is safe.
Sarah Gibson
Q
We have not had accountable assessors, so we can have an assessment that decides that a building is tolerable but actually that tolerable level, as decided by an assessor, turns out not to meet the standard of building regulations, even at the time of construction. Why are we surprised that people cannot then sell their houses, get mortgages, or get insurance? We should not be. We must recognise that if we are going to put in a new piece of legislation, which will add to the amount of legislation that a leaseholder must look at, it has to be watertight—forgive the expression. The point has been raised today and it still concerns me: there is a lack of clarity about where—with which agency—the buck actually stops. A leaseholder needs to know where to go at the end. Who is really, finally responsible and accountable?
We also must make sure that the assessors who make the decisions can be held accountable, and that they have an ethical code in place to make sure that they cannot be manipulated by their employer. We should make sure that we make those points really clear during scrutiny of the Bill. That will make a difference to our leaseholders, who have waited so long for this legislation. I want to make sure that the Committee irons out those points over the next few weeks.
Florence Eshalomi: I totally hear that and accept it. To be honest, no one Bill can fix this mess. We are trying to make sure that leaseholders who have invested in good faith are not burdened with all the costs, hence the Bill introduces the charge for construction product manufacturers, which is important. To date, construction product manufacturers have not played their part in fixing the mess they created.
We are trying to strike the right balance. We have heard from the National Housing Federation and the LGA. If colleagues from the LGA, and other councillors, were here they would highlight the difficulties that they have in bringing forward new development. I see that acutely in my constituency, where—as the Committee knows—the Government introduced measures to change housing targets, which is having an impact.
A more prescriptive, blanket approach could lead to more extensive remediation, but will it make residents safe? Will it achieve the ultimate goal? How can we have the least disruption to residents? Some residents may have to leave their homes, and some will have additional costs—we must make sure those costs are recouped—and ultimately slower remediation. How do we make sure that we give more power and support to BSR to get the buildings that have been identified remediated?
We must be honest: although the issues in New Zealand are not similar to those here, there are areas where we can definitely learn. I will task officials to look a bit closer at that, and see if there is anything in the Bill that we can tweak during its passage. It is about being open, honest and receptive to those challenges, about making sure that we are being challenged and ultimately about trying to get something right as we progress the Bill.
Andrew Cooper
Q
Florence Eshalomi
Thank you for that; it is really important. I am not sure if all colleagues are aware of the new highlights from Minister Pennycook today in terms of charges being passed on to leaseholders. It is allowing leaseholders to interrogate and ask their building freeholders for more information around the insurance costs. It is allowing leaseholders to challenge some of those costs as they come forward. These are all measures we hope will help in some cases where leaseholders have been asked to pay more but in essence get a much poorer service.
Separate to that is the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which I know you have campaigned on for a very long time, Mr Cooper. We are hoping it will come back to the House before the end of the year. The Prime Minister committed to that in PMQs yesterday. That will help leaseholders in terms of challenging unfair ground rents, where we are seeing many leaseholders pay in excess of £1,000 for nothing.
There are big issues around the service charge. Some leaseholders actually want to get rid of their managing agents, so the right to manage is another area being covered. We are looking at a whole range of packages to help leaseholders who have ultimately made that commitment to a home, because for many of them that dream has turned into a nightmare.
I hope, as the Bill progresses, the packages in it, especially some of the packages for non-qualifying leaseholders and packages for buildings under 11 metres, will help alleviate some of the cost of living pressures that many leaseholders up and down the country are facing.
Andrew Cooper
Thank you, Minister. I was going to ask you about the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, but you got ahead of me.
Bob Blackman
Q
Florence Eshalomi: I am happy to take that away, look at it and come back to the Member.
Bob Blackman
Q
Florence Eshalomi: It is important that we try and get a Bill that can get support across the House. That might mean sitting down with Opposition and Government Members to make sure we are bringing forward amendments that would help strengthen the Bill. We feel that the range of packages, as drafted, are strong enough, but that is something I would be willing to work with Members on.
Olivia Blake
Q
Florence Eshalomi: I am hoping so. One of the areas that Lord Andy Roe and Charlie Pugsley outlined was capacity across industry. A key issue that has been raised is around the quality and competency of fire assessors; making sure they are in place to carry out the assessments, first and foremost, is quite important. We are working to ensure we are helping and speeding that up.
I know that local government colleagues will raise the extra burdens cost, and we are looking at that. Hopefully, all these different measures should help, ultimately, to speed up that remediation. We have a target; we have not met that target yet, but we are on course and working at pace to make sure we hit it in time.
The Chair
I do not think we have time for a further question. I thank the Minister for giving evidence. We have now come to the end of the session. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday 17 November to begin line-by-line consideration.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Sarah Coombes.)
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 8 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
China and the UK Economy
(1 day, 8 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
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for today’s statement on the 10th report from my Committee in this Session, examining the UK-China economic relationship. I should probably preface my remarks by confessing a degree of interest in this issue. I have worked on the UK-China relationship for almost 20 years. I was among those who helped to launch the economic and financial dialogue with Lord Darling, God rest his soul. Back at the end of the last Labour Government, I was an active player in the UK-China leadership for the future forum. I sat on the board of the Great Britain-China Centre for many years, started the UK-China young leaders roundtable in my younger days and produced my own book on the UK-China relationship just before it became fashionable. This is a subject in which I have a long-standing interest, and I was grateful that the Committee agreed that it was an essential piece of our work and of the work we do on this nation’s economic security.
The House has within it a number of colleagues who would counsel that we should minimise our dialogue with China. But I am among those who believe, and my Committee agrees, that ostrich diplomacy does not serve the UK national interest especially well. The UK-China relationship will be one of the most consequential relationships for this country in the 21st century, so it was absolutely right that the new Government sought to intensify engagement with China from the moment they were elected to office. However, they undertook their audit of UK-China relationships in secret, and despite the efforts of a number of Select Committees, we have still not seen the results. Nor have we seen any comprehensive UK-China strategy that might sit on top of that new engagement or that audit.
We have what might be fairly summarised not as a strategy but as a punchline—the mantra of compete, collaborate and confront. That is a semi-helpful string of words, but it is not a strategy and not something the business community, in particular, can operationalise to any useful effect. That is important because right now many in the business community do want a deeper relationship with China. On the one hand, they are pulling their punches, pulling investment and pulling their effort; they are not intensifying in the way we might want them to, because, out of an abundance of caution, they simply do not want to put a foot wrong. On the other hand, there is now clear evidence that we are accumulating vulnerabilities in a way that is simply dangerous.
We need only look at two or three different decisions in the past, but also in the not-too-distant future, to see why some coherence and consistency and, crucially, a shared strategy between the state and the private sector are needed. The decision on Ming Yang involved the potential investment of a very significant amount by that Chinese firm in Scotland. We still do not know why that investment was pulled or why Government sent messages that it was not something to be welcomed. Equally, we were all called to this House—the Minister did a brilliant job of helping to lead the debate—to renationalise British Steel when, all of a sudden, its Chinese owners sent the business in the wrong direction.
There is now a lively debate about the sense in allowing Chinese connected tech to proliferate through our economy. We are also having a debate with our European partners about whether we should align on anti-competitive practices by China and introduce tariffs on electric vehicles.
In example after example, sector after sector, and investment after investment, we are now running into the necessity of a clear Government strategy for helping business in particular, but also civil society more widely, to understand where the guardrails are in the relationship with China. What this report seeks to do is to set out both the prize and the peril of a deeper relationship with China, and there are five points that stood out to me, as Chair of the Committee, in the work we did and that I would like to share with the House.
First, we feel there needs to be much clearer demarcation of those economic sectors in which we should encourage trade with China and those in which we should not. In the green zones, where trade should be welcomed, we should go all in. We should do more to encourage a deepening of economic relationships, and mobilising the UK’s soft power more comprehensively than we do today. That is important, not least because it is good for trade, jobs and economic growth. It is crucial for the UK’s long-term influence in China, which will extend well beyond the governance of President Xi and into what we hope will be a more constructive phase of Chinese leadership.
However, as part of that story, there need to be clear red zones. They would be easier to demarcate if the Government listened to our Committee, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and the Defence Committee and set out the sovereign capabilities where trade with China is simply unwise. At the moment, business has to guess what that looks like. When we took evidence, officials and the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), rightly said that this is very difficult and things might change, but that has not stopped allies like Canada setting out sovereign capabilities or allies like Japan setting out critical components where trade with China is unwise. The Government saying that something is difficult also does not stop other people having to make the difficult decision; it just transfers it to someone else. That transfer of risk to the private sector has a cost. We would like a clear demarcation of those sectors in which Chinese trade should be encouraged and those in which it should not.
Secondly, the new approach needs to be underpinned by very different rules of the game with China. That has to start with a much tougher approach to levelling the playing field. The brilliant work of the OECD makes it clear that in some sectors of the economy China is over-subsidising its industry by six times more than we are in Europe, which is simply unfair. What has become known as China shock 2.0 is costing tens of thousands of jobs across Europe. A weaker European manufacturing industry is simply not in our national interest. The Committee concludes that we should work much harder with our partners in the European Union to develop pro-competition, pro-fairness measures for levelling the playing field with China. If that means readying tariffs, that is exactly what we should do. We should align around the kinds of initiatives taken by President Macron and Chancellor Merz. I hope we see a little more progress on that at the summit with the European Union on 20 November.
The third takeaway is that although we should innovate carefully with China, which is important in fields like life science, we should be much more robust about defending technologically sensitive areas. That is particularly important in connected tech. We think that recent Lords amendments had a lot of virtue and that the Government should have supported them. We should ban Chinese connected tech from our critical national infrastructure and invest in supplying our universities with a much faster response to their inquiries about where research and development with Chinese partners is wise and where it is unwise. The recent revelations from the Security Service underline the necessity of making sure that Universities UK and our universities more widely are equipped with that knowledge.
Fourthly, we need to prepare now for the disruption to supply chains that might come. For example, if someone tries to change the status quo in the straits of Taiwan, that will be an enormous economic shock that will disrupt supply chains across our economy. We should stress-test now supply chains that will be impacted and work harder to diversify suppliers. As the Committee set out in its report on critical minerals last week, we should redouble our efforts, with a new critical minerals finance facility to bring online not just domestic supply and recycling, but a wider diversity of international supply.
Finally, we should act with speed and aggression to ban forced labour from supply chains. I was pleased to see the correspondence from the Secretary of State to my Committee at the end of last week, showing that the Government will move on that. I hope there will be Government amendments to part 5 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill to enshrine a responsibility on businesses to ensure that they are doing the right thing and banning forced labour from our country.
My final point is about the state. We are very lucky in this country to have the great Peter Wilson as our ambassador in Beijing, but in truth we have lost an immense amount of China expertise across Whitehall. It is clear that we do not have a systematic way of integrating threat assessments and benefit analysis to inform decision making in Whitehall and, crucially, regional governments. We will have to do better at building a strategic state to contend with China in the future, and I hope our report is a useful contribution to that debate.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
In my eagerness to hear from Mr Byrne, I forgot to give him his full title and to read out the title of what we are debating. He is Chair of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, and we are discussing the Committee’s 10th report, “China and the UK economy: the case for risk-managed growth”, HC 124.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras, Mr Efford. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank the Committee and its chair for this report, which makes for illuminating—if concerning—reading alongside last week’s critical minerals report.
As a Cornish MP and chair of the electric vehicle all-party parliamentary group, I have two separate but related questions. First, the report recommends “targeted interventions” to secure sovereign capabilities and hedge against growing dependence on China. Are Cornwall’s tin, lithium and tungsten projects the sort of sovereign capability the Committee has in mind? Secondly, given the warnings in the report about China shock 2.0, does the Chair of the Committee agree that heavily subsidised Chinese electric vehicles are a far greater threat to UK automotive manufacturers than the UK’s zero emission vehicle mandate?
Liam Byrne
Let me take the hon. Member’s questions in order. We believe that the right approach to derisking trade with China is not a wholesale decoupling. Instead, precision derisking is needed, where we take aim at specific things where we need to diversify supplies and ensure that we are not reliant on supplies from China. The best way to do that, given that we must make choices, is to look at which capabilities we as a country want to be sovereign and which we want to develop with close allies such as the Europeans, Canadians, Japanese, Australians or Koreans. This debate has rumbled on over the last couple of years, and the Government have set out different lists in different strategies. But clarity is really needed for the private sector because private sector investment needs to come over decades if we are to ensure we have resilient economic security in this country.
Inevitably, those sovereign capabilities will draw on the natural resources of Cornwall, and particularly the minerals the hon. Member set out. If we do not have up-to-date information about the geology in the geological surveys of this country, we are approaching this issue without the right information on the table. It is not free to update those geological surveys, but is it a wise investment? Yes, it is. Crucially, we then need to put together a finance stack that allows us to invest in the whole life journey of bringing online new mines and processing and recycling facilities, in a way that would be tremendous for his economy. He has been a doughty champion for the critical minerals industry in Cornwall, and Ministers would be wise to listen to his advice. The recommendations we laid out in our report on critical minerals last Friday were greatly informed by his contributions in this House over the last couple of years.
On EVs, the Secretary of State and Ministers have had to strike a delicate balance. They have been supremely conscious that if we introduce tariffs on Chinese imports, that raises the cost for British consumers and risks reciprocal action by China against British exports. My soundings with the British automotive industry today indicate that there is now far more support for introducing tariffs on over-subsidised Chinese EVs. Crucially, if we want to draw closer to the European Union over the years to come, it will insist that the UK is not a back door to over-subsidised Chinese products of any kind. It will also ask us to align more closely with it in protecting the European manufacturing industry from China shock 2.0. We are going to have to make a choice, and I think that the right choice is aligning with Europe and protecting European manufacturing and supply chains. That is in our national interest and it is what we will need in a more uncertain and risky world in the years to come.
Backbench Business
(1 day, 8 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
Fire and Rescue Services: Suicide Prevention Training
(1 day, 8 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
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of suicide prevention training for fire and rescue services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate and all the hon. Members from across the House who supported the application.
Today, I am backing the Samaritans’ “United with the frontline” campaign to call on the Government to ensure that every fire and rescue service in England has funded mandatory suicide prevention training for all its firefighters. I pay tribute to Samaritans, the UK and Ireland’s largest suicide prevention charity. Every 10 seconds, a Samaritans volunteer responds to a call for help. In 2025, that meant over 3.3 million calls. As well as the helpline, Samaritans works with people in community settings and prisons and provides training across different workplaces, including to fire services in England. Given its incredible service helping to save the lives of people at their most vulnerable, I believe that it is important that we, as policymakers, listen to the voice of Samaritans when deciding how we can best prevent lives being lost to suicide.
Samaritans tells me of a stark picture of the situation today. Last year, 5,728 deaths by suicide were registered in England and the suicide rate reached its highest level in over 20 years. Clearly, there is more that this place can do to support people in their hour of need and prevent the death by suicide of our constituents.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In its briefing, Samaritans highlights not only the 3,200 suicide call-outs that fire crews attend, but the heavy toll on firefighters themselves, with over 60% reporting mental health struggles. Does he agree that mandatory training must work both ways: equipping crews to save lives in the community while building robust workplace support to protect its own staff?
Luke Akehurst
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for her helpful intervention. I agree that this cuts both ways. It is both about the members of the public that the fire service intervenes with when they are in crisis and the mental health of firefighters themselves. I will come to that point later in my speech.
Fire and rescue services play a key role supporting vulnerable people every day. Their skills are often required in attending complex incidents, meaning that they often interact with the people in society most at risk of suicidal crisis. Increasingly, fire and rescue services are being called out to people in suicidal crisis. In the last decade, the number of call-outs to suicide incidents has sadly tripled. Despite firefighters being more and more expected to support people in crisis, there is no current mandatory in-depth suicide training offer for every firefighter in England. Such provision could train them to spot the signs of suicidality, compassionately open up non-judgmental conversations about suicide and make a safe intervention to stop a suicide.
Exposing the postcode lottery that this gap in provision leads to, Samaritans made freedom of information requests in June last year, which indicated the variation across the country. While eight fire and rescue services had some form of mandatory training relating to suicide prevention, a further 18 only had optional training, while eight more had no suicide prevention or related mental health training whatever. Most commonly, optional training consists of a short e-learning module focused on awareness raising, which, although valuable, is unlikely to equip a firefighter with the skills needed to save a life.
Thankfully, in County Durham, Samaritans found that we do have mandatory operational training on a person in crisis. However, the disparity in provision can be seen just across our one region in the north-east as Cleveland has a non-mandatory version of that training, while Northumberland does not provide any training of this kind. Clearly, a national standard is needed to support fire and rescue services to provide the training that their workers need to respond to complex crises.
It is not just members of the public who are left unsupported by these gaps in training. Firefighters have prolonged contact with their peers in the fire and rescue services who also may be struggling with their mental health, exacerbated by the pressure of their role and the trauma that they often witness. Some 51 deaths by suicide among firefighters were recorded between 2011 and 2018, and 21 suicides by non-senior fire service officers were recorded between 2020 and 2022. A survey found that over 60% of fire service staff and volunteers had experienced mental health problems linked to traumatic events at work. I hope the Minister will outline in his remarks what the Government are doing to ensure that fire and rescue services have the support they need in the workplace to undertake their work while living happy and fulfilled lives.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Firefighters and fire crews see traumatic events on a regular basis. Sometimes, on busy days, they get very little time to decompress or debrief between events. There is an amazing guy in Hampshire called Spencer Wragg, a former police officer, who is trying to get a mental health support app put on every police work phone in the country so that the police can get the support when they need it. Does the hon. Gentleman think that something similar should be explored for firefighters?
Luke Akehurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. If that idea is rolled out to the police, it ought also to be rolled out to other emergency responders.
In its first year of operation, the Fire Fighters Charity crisis line received more than 200 calls from firefighters in need of support. I pay tribute to that organisation’s work, providing online resources alongside that helpline. Individual fire and rescue services have also made strides to adopt and trial workplace support tools despite the lack of an overarching national framework.
Although forces have pioneered their own approaches, such as trauma risk management training and peer supporter systems to facilitate supportive conversations between colleagues, our fire and rescue services should not be left on their own when they are already under-resourced and be expected to work out the best mental health provision with no support or guidance from the top. Clearly, this industry needs bespoke mental health support for its workers. Firefighters put their lives on the line to keep us safe; the least we can do is provide them with the support they need for their mental wellbeing.
In discussing any expansion in the role of our fire and rescue services, the voice of firefighters must be front and centre. I urge the Government to engage constructively with the Fire Brigades Union, and I urge the Minister to set out the engagement of the Minister that he is standing in for today, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, with the union on this matter so far.
The evidence that this training can have a real impact is clear. Already, Samaritans and other providers deliver such training to workplaces that request it. The Samaritans’ training and engagement programme has proven that there is demand for workplace training on how to manage conversations about suicide, how to make a suicide intervention and how to manage the effects of a suicide within fire and rescue services. For example, Samaritans has worked with London Fire Brigade to provide such training to about 50 of their workers.
I pay tribute to the provisions on staff welfare that our local fire and rescue authority in County Durham and Darlington provide already. Those include counselling employer assistant programmes, signposting to local professional organisations that specialise in trauma support and utilising the Fire Fighters Charity crisis line, which all UK fire and rescue services subscribe to.
Let me come to the campaign’s asks of the Government and our asks of the Minister who is responding to the debate. Today, I want to back Samaritans’ call for a national approach to delivering suicide prevention training to fire and rescue services. Such a national approach will ensure that every force is equipped to support those in crisis and to save lives. In doing so, the Government would recognise that the support a person receives in a mental health crisis should not vary depending on where in the country they live or what operational decisions their fire and rescue authority has made with its limited resources. I urge the Minister to set out plans for this much-needed approach in his response.
I recognise and welcome steps that have already been taken to address these gaps, including a suicide prevention toolkit, published by the National Fire Chiefs Council, which I know Samaritans was successful in influencing. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has launched a public consultation on the creation of a new college of fire and rescue to better align training and national standards across England in order to improve the health and wellbeing of fire and rescue staff. That consultation presents an opportunity to embed suicide prevention training in the improved offer.
Standards should be developed by a working group of suicide prevention experts, with a focus on training that is in-depth, facilitator-led and, where possible, carried out in person. Such training should focus on developing practical skills to support people’s safety through conversations about suicidal thoughts, with the aim of building confidence in signposting people to the right support. Training must also build practical skills in safely managing suicide prevention for someone in crisis. I would appreciate the Minister updating the House on whether suicide prevention training is being looked at as part of that consultation, and on how he will ensure that suicide prevention experts and people with lived experience are at the heart of any proposals.
I am grateful for the support from other hon. Members for this crucial campaign. No one suffering from a severe mental health crisis should ever be left without the support they need. In countless cases our fire and rescue services step in and provide that support. They can often be the literal difference between life and death. We owe it to them, and to everyone in our country who suffers from mental illness or who is at risk of a mental health crisis, to provide the training needed to save lives and begin the road to recovery. I look forward to the Minister’s outlining what the Government are doing to ensure that every fire and rescue service worker receives the training that they need so that all our constituents know that if they or a loved one ever needs that emergency support, they will receive it.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this important debate. I commend him on his speech, which went into a huge amount of detail on the suicide prevention training that is absolutely needed for our fire and rescue services.
Across the House we will no doubt agree that when constituents struggle with their mental health and reach out for help our mental health services must be robust and supported enough to deliver that. I draw the House’s attention to a deeply tragic case from my constituency. It brings into focus the devastating consequences of that system breaking down, which has deeply detrimental impacts. Last Friday I met my constituent Christine Meeking. She came to see me after losing her daughter, Nicola, to suicide. In the days before Nicola died, her GP tried on three separate occasions to reach Bradford’s First Response mental health crisis service but could not get through. Christine now carries the unbearable belief that if, from those attempts to reach out, Nicola had received the crisis support and care that she so desperately needed, she might still be here.
The failure did not end there. In my surgery last week Christine told me that, in seeking answers, she herself repeatedly tried calling First Response and was left on hold on the line for 40 minutes before the line cut out. She then tried to phone First Response back and waited for a further 48 minutes. Christine tried to get through for a total of 88 minutes. She made the point rightly to me that to anyone in crisis 88 minutes can seem an eternity. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened to her daughter Nicola.
After Christine shared her story with me, I raised the issue with the Bradford district care trust and wrote to the Department of Health and Social Care—I know that a Minister from MHCLG is responding in this debate, but that builds the case I will make: that this is a cross-Government and cross-departmental issue. The trust’s reply to the concerns that I raised on behalf of Christine Meeking was not satisfactory. It was a standard letter designed specifically to pass the blame. I wrote to the Department of Health and Social Care on 7 August, but I am yet to receive a response on behalf of my constituent. That is simply not good enough, especially when we are nearly at the middle of November. In that time, Christine has rightly asked if the system that we are expected to rely on is suitable and fit for purpose. Clearly, it is not.
Christine has shown extraordinary courage in coming forward and meeting me. She did so simply to get that point across. She told me that, although nothing can bring back her daughter, if speaking out can save just one family from going through what she has suffered, it will be worth it.
That brings me to the subject of the debate: ensuring that our fire and rescue services receive suicide prevention training. Nicola’s experience demonstrates just how critical the first response is, and it does not always come from a mental health professional. Increasingly, our fire and rescue crews are being called upon to attend incidents involving people experiencing suicidal distress, and they are often the first on the scene. In those critical moments, having the right training can absolutely save someone’s life.
Figures show that suicide-related incidents attended by fire and rescue services in England rose from 1,119 in 2014 to 3,184 in 2024—and of course those are not just numbers; they represent people in desperate need of help. Yet there is still no mandatory, standardised suicide prevention training for firefighters. I have met many of the firefighters operating across my constituency, and they have reiterated to me time and again that they would absolutely welcome that training, if it were available to them as standard.
As the hon. Member for North Durham rightly pointed out, Samaritans has called for protected time for firefighters to undertake this training, following the Government’s announcement of similar provisions for some police officers. I would like reassurance from the Minister that this will be rolled out to firefighters. It should not be a provision made for the police, but not for firefighters; all emergency services should be offered this training. This cannot be left to individual fire and rescue authorities; it must be a direction coming from the centre.
With incidents rising so steeply over the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, as the data I referred to shows, we are in desperate need of a robust and consistent national approach. I therefore call on the Government to introduce mandatory, standardised suicide prevention training across all fire and rescue services, providing in-depth, in-person and practical skills and knowledge. We must also get over the siloed approach that naturally, but unfortunately, exists within Government between one Department and another. To reiterate, in Nicola’s case, the service provision that she was reaching out for would ultimately sit under the Department of Health and Social Care, but this debate is being answered by an MHCLG Minister. We must remove ourselves from that siloed thinking and do everything we can to ensure that when someone does reach out, the first response they receive is the right one. I urge the Government to commit today to making that happen.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this very important debate.
We have heard about some of the incredible, essential work that fire and rescue services do when responding to suicide call-outs. Often first on the scene, making life-or-death decisions in traumatic and dangerous situations that put their own safety at risk, firefighters deserve our utmost respect and support.
Since becoming an MP, it has been my pleasure to meet firefighters from my local fire and rescue service and their leadership in my constituency. As part of last year’s inaugural cohort of MPs taking part in the parliamentary knowledge scheme for frontline services, it was also a privilege to visit the London Fire Brigade station in Paddington, which is one of the busiest in London. I am always impressed by the work that firefighters are able to carry out, often in extreme conditions.
However, as we have heard, suicide-related call-outs to fire and rescue services have risen markedly. Since records began in England, they have more than tripled, with services attending 3,250 incidents in the year ending September 2025—about 62 every week. Indeed, other rescue services, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Mountain Rescue, also tell me that the biggest increase in their call-outs over the past few years has been to incidents involving self-harm or mental health more generally.
When that increase is added to more recent pressures on the fire service—be they budgetary pressures, such as fuel inflation, or the greater number of fire call-outs caused by increasingly hot summers due to the climate emergency—it is more important than ever that our fire and rescue services are better supported by the Government. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that firefighters should have the training, skills and confidence that they need to respond safely and effectively when someone is experiencing a suicidal crisis.
It cannot be right that there is no consistent mandatory suicide prevention training across fire and rescue services in England, and that instead individual services are responsible for their own training. To guarantee any less is fair neither for a firefighter attending such a difficult and upsetting call-out, nor for a patient in need of help. The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to review introducing mandatory England-wide suicide prevention training for firefighters and to work with fire and rescue services, local authorities—we have a MHCLG Minister responding to the debate, and this is very relevant to his portfolio—and suicide prevention organisations.
As other Members mentioned, the Government have rightly introduced protected time for trauma and suicide prevention training for new police recruits. It must surely follow that firefighters, who often face many of the same situations as police officers, receive equivalent support. Although that would be a welcome step, it should form part of a wider workplace wellbeing safety net. Regular exposure to suicide and traumatic call-outs has serious impacts on firefighters and their mental health, with inevitable knock-on effects for retention in the service. My Liberal Democrat colleagues are therefore keen to ensure regular and comprehensive health screenings for firefighters throughout the whole of their careers—and, indeed, their retirement—so that no firefighter is left without help.
Sadly, suicide prevention training is one small part of a broader package of support that fire and rescue services need. I hope the Government will seriously consider our calls for greater suicide prevention training and endorse the clear cross-party sentiment that fire and rescue services—indeed, all rescue services—need to be recognised and supported, given the increasing workloads and pressures that they face.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this debate, and it is a pleasure to be opposite the Minister. It is a tribute to his intellectual breadth that this morning I heard him on the “Today” programme talking about youth unemployment, and this afternoon he is here to talk about fire services and suicide training.
This is an issue that most of us, as constituency Members of Parliament, will hear about when we engage with our local fire services. When I visited the station in Pinner, it was one of a number of concerns that seemed to emerge from the experience of those fire crews and the changing nature of the call-outs. They said that the job used to be predominantly about rescuing people in emergencies and attending house fires, but that they increasingly have to deal with things such as motor crashes and crises when a person has called the emergency services, uncertain about the exact nature of what is going on and the firefighters are the responders summoned. They therefore find themselves dealing with an individual in a moment of crisis, perhaps facing a situation that is outside the normal breadth of their training; my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) set out a powerful constituency example showing how important that is.
The Government need to consider carefully how to roll out an appropriate level of training. One issue, and also perhaps a learning opportunity, is the way that the whole range of our public services addresses emerging issues. On suicide prevention, social workers, police officers and workers in various parts of the NHS have a high degree of personal expertise and will have had high-quality training and the opportunity to make a good assessment, based on the evidence, of what works effectively to prepare those individuals for the situations that they may come across. We must avoid reinventing the wheel for fire service professionals, when we may be able to use the learning from effective programmes in place elsewhere to ensure that what is provided is focused and appropriate, and gives firefighters the skills they need when dealing with members of the public in a moment of crisis.
It is important in such a debate to remind ourselves about the risks, particularly when we are talking about mandatory training and what that involves. Those of us who have spent a long time in local government dealing with issues such as child sexual exploitation will be very conscious that when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority any more. Recent estimates on the new Oliver McGowan training in the NHS, which is designed to raise awareness and skill levels about people with learning disabilities and how they interact with the health service, describe a potential bill of as much as £1 billion for a day and a half of mandatory training for every single member of staff—3.7 million people across the NHS and social care. That will also have a service impact due to the unavailability of those staff to deal with patients because they are being abstracted to undertake that training.
I know that the Minister and the Government will quite rightly have in mind—and the Opposition support them in this—ensuring a proportionate approach and making sure that the people who are in the best position to help individuals going through that moment of crisis are the ones who get the most focused training, but that the general level of awareness across those organisations is raised to the right level.
Marie Goldman
The hon. Member is making an interesting point about proportionality of training. He mentions the cost of doing the training, but I have not heard anything about the subsequent impact on the NHS—for example, if people are in better mental health because they have been helped by somebody who has had training, what positive knock-on impact might that have on the NHS? Has he made any assessment of that?
David Simmonds
I think proportionality encompasses exactly that question—a question that our public health professionals and our public services have to address every single day, with every patient that they see and with every organisational review that they undertake: what is the cost, benefit and consequence of this, especially when it involves taking a member of staff away from dealing directly with someone who might be in a moment of crisis, to undertake training on a different subject? What is the overall impact, and how do we make sure that those resources are best used?
Quite rightly, the hon. Member for North Durham and other contributors focused mainly on the impact on the public—the fact that this is a public service and what it means to those people who may be in a moment of crisis. However, it is also valuable to remember the contributions that touched on the impact on the firefighters and public servants more broadly. I am very conscious, from the work that I did on the impact of child sexual exploitation that it was about both making sure that people understood the signs in children and in families, and the indicators of risk that meant intervention was required, and also understanding the cumulative impact of dealing with incredibly difficult issues on someone’s mental health and wellbeing, and on their ability to do a professional job to a high standard.
The hon. Member for North Durham very nicely encompassed this point and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley touched on it as well: this is also about us, as employers of public servants, making sure that we exercise an appropriate duty of care for the people who are doing this incredibly difficult job on behalf of our society, and that they have the skills, tools and training that they need to cope with the things that that will require them to do.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate, and I thank the other Members who have spoken. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his kind words; I was actually on the morning rounds speaking about service charge protections for leaseholders, but I was very glad to speak about youth unemployment and a variety of other topics as well.
Mr Efford, as will be evident to you, I am not the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who would ordinarily respond to a debate on this subject; my hon. Friend is currently taking the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill through its Committee stage, and so I am responding in her stead.
In the time I have available to me, I intend to provide some further clarity about the Government’s support for the fire and rescue services. Before I do, I make two general points. The first, as several hon. Members have alluded to, is that we should not lose sight of the people at the heart of this debate, namely individuals who have been lost to suicide or those whose suicidal feelings have led them to attempt to take their own lives. Every life lost to suicide is a tragedy, one that leaves a lasting impact on families, friends and communities. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in paying tribute to the work of the Samaritans. We value their expertise in suicide prevention and we take very seriously their concerns in this area.
Secondly, on behalf of the Government, I pay tribute to those firefighters, but also the control room staff and other emergency service personnel, who respond at some of the most difficult moments in people’s lives. The impacts of dealing with the situations that we have discussed this afternoon can stay with them long after an incident has ended, so it is vital that we support them with the skills and confidence they need to help people in crisis and to ensure their own wellbeing.
The data, as hon. Members have mentioned, is perfectly clear: firefighters are attending more suicide-related call-outs. In the year to March 2026, fire and rescue services in England attended 3,270 non-fire incidents involving suicide or attempted suicide. That is a 151% increase from 10 years ago. That trend reinforces the importance of firefighters being properly prepared and supported. But the attendance data does not tell us what training those firefighters receive, whether that training was adequate, why attendance has increased or how many individual firefighters have been exposed. The figures therefore provide a strong reason to examine current provision, but they do not demonstrate that existing training is inadequate or that mandatory training is the appropriate solution.
Our first step is to work with the sector to understand whether there are any material gaps in existing provision. We will seek the health and wellbeing task and finish group’s advice on current provision, and, taking account of that advice, consider with the National Fire Chiefs Council whether any further sector-led work is needed. If the evidence does identify material gaps, we will consider with the sector what further action would be appropriate. This could include the role of standards and inspection in providing greater assurance, but we do not want to pre-empt what the evidence tells us.
The important point to make clear is that any significant new national requirements, funding or assurance arrangements would require separate decisions, because further action will be informed by the evidence and what is practical and proportionate. I am glad the shadow Minister mentioned the need for proportionality. Our position is that work needs to be proportionate and predominantly sector-led unless the Government consciously decide to reprioritise resources. Responsibility for delivery is kept with fire and rescue authorities, while allowing the Government and sector partners to determine whether any further national or sector-led action is justified.
I want to make it clear, because this is the central point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and others have put to me, that we are not ruling out mandatory national training in future. However, a nationally mandated requirement would represent a significant departure from the current approach. Fire and rescue authorities are responsible as employers for determining the training that their staff need, and the Government do not currently mandate individual training requirements. Our approach is generally, as I said, to support sector-led improvement, including through funding the National Fire Chiefs Council to target support where it is most needed. We do not currently have evidence that would justify making an exception to that approach for suicide prevention training.
In the Government’s view, the evidence does not demonstrate systemic failure across the sector or establish that mandation would be the most effective or proportionate response. However, given the increase in suicide-related incidents, stakeholder concerns and the policing commitment, there is good reason to work with the sector to understand whether there are material gaps in existing provision. As I said, if that work identifies significant and persistent gaps that cannot adequately be addressed through sector-led improvement, guidance or clearer expectations, we will consider what further action is justified by the evidence. But our immediate priority, as I have said, is to establish the evidence.
I should just make a point in terms of a comparison with the police because, as part of establishing the evidence base, we will draw on learnings from the police force. Police officers are being given protected time for trauma and suicide prevention training. Although there are important parallels between the services—firefighters and police officers can find themselves responding side by side to traumatic incidents—the policing commitment responds to the specific evidence and circumstances within policing, including geographical variation in workforce support and wider wellbeing pressures. The evidence of a particular problem in some police force training does not in itself demonstrate equivalent systemic gaps across fire and rescue services.
There is also existing support for the fire and rescue service, including the National Fire Chiefs Council’s suicide prevention and postvention toolkit, the development of which was supported through Government grant funding. The toolkit provides practical resources and pathways to support prevention, early intervention and postvention. We also recognise the important contribution of specialist organisations, including the Fire Fighters Charity and Samaritans. The Fire Fighters Charity provides dedicated suicide prevention resources and a 24-hour crisis line for the fire service community, which received more than 200 calls in its first year. Many services also work with Samaritans and other specialist organisations.
I will just say a little on improving existing training. Alongside our commitment to building the evidence base, the Government will also work closely with the sector to better understand best practice—there is good practice out there—and to identify where there might be material gaps in existing provision.
We will seek the advice of the cross-sector firefighter health and wellbeing task and finish group. Taking account of that advice, the Fire Minister—Baroness Blake of Leeds—will discuss with the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Local Government Association and other partners what further sector-led work is needed to identify and address material gaps. We will also engage with the Fire Standards Board and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services to consider how standards and inspection can provide stronger assurance.
Marie Goldman
The Minister has said “sector-led” a few times in his response, which is important. However, it is my understanding that this training is essentially something that Samaritans is asking for, and who can say that Samaritans does not lead the sector when it comes to suicide prevention? I wonder what more he needs to see from the sector to suggest that providing this training would not be the right approach to adopt.
Matthew Pennycook
I have tried to convey that although we take very seriously the concerns of Samaritans—we will work with Samaritans and we are interested in its evidence—it is the Government’s assessment that we do not have the evidence base that would justify, at this moment in time, mandating national guidance in a way that would be a significant departure from the current approach. However, as I have also tried to make clear, we are not shutting down the option of mandating such guidance; we want to explore whether it is required.
I will say a little on cross-Government work, because the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned it; I will ensure that colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care register his concerns. The Government are addressing the impacts of work-related trauma more widely through our broader work on firefighter health and wellbeing. My Department and the Department of Health and Social Care are working jointly with the sector on prevention, early intervention and longer-term support. This includes development of a cross-sector firefighter health and wellbeing concord, research into occupational health risks, and work to develop an enhanced health monitoring offer, building on existing arrangements and tailored to the occupational risks that firefighters face. That matters because, as I have said, the effects of traumatic incidents do not necessarily end when the incident ends; they may emerge later, or build up over a career. The Government’s approach recognises both the skills that firefighters need to help members of the public in crisis, and—as I have also said—the support that they themselves need.
Finally, as the Government have already announced, we intend to launch the college of fire and rescue in 2029 to strengthen professional standards, skills and training across the sector. The Government will carefully consider what support we might provide as the college’s functions are finalised, and I will ensure that the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham is considered by the Fire Minister.
I again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and I thank hon. Members for contributing. Firefighters are being called to increasing numbers of these deeply difficult incidents. They need the skills and confidence to help people experiencing suicidal crisis, and they deserve support for the effect that such work might have on them. Although I have not been able to commit to mandating a particular national training model today, I hope that in my response to the debate I have been able to reassure hon. Members that the Government are not simply assuming that current provision is good enough. As I have made clear, we want to work with the sector to understand whether there are material gaps in existing provision and to determine what further action, if any, is needed.
As we do so, I know that the Fire Minister will be more than happy to keep my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and other hon. Members updated, and I will make sure that she responds specifically to a number of the points that my hon. Friend made, not least regarding what engagement she has had as Fire Minister with the Fire Brigades Union.
Luke Akehurst
I thank everyone who has participated in what I think has been a useful debate, during which we have had the time to delve into a serious and important subject in quite some detail.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made the important point that the first responder on the scene is critical and that the training that they have received can save lives. He outlined the tragic case of his constituent’s daughter, and it was important for us to hear about what this issue means for the people who are directly affected by it.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who have now left the Chamber, but who made important and useful interventions before they did so.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), made some very important points in support of the call by Samaritans for mandatory training, and very importantly she raised the issue of the support offered to firefighters compared with the support offered to the police.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), talked about the changing nature of call-outs and the increased number that involve an individual in crisis. He made a very important point about learning from what is effective in training programmes in other sectors rather than reinventing the wheel. He also made the important point about a proportionate approach to the time taken up in training and the costs involved, along with raising the important issue of the duty of care to the firefighters.
I thank the Minister for his very detailed response to the debate and for paying tribute to Samaritans as an organisation and our firefighters. It was important that he mentioned the control room staff. After a meeting last Friday, I had the honour of being taken into the control room for County Durham and Darlington by the chief fire officer. It was the height of the firework season and very busy, and I saw the calm way that those people dealt with dramatic phone calls coming in short order. I think of the impact that working in that way every day must have on them.
The Minister mentioned the importance of the National Fire Chiefs Council for looking at any gaps in training as a sector. He also mentioned not pre-empting the evidence that comes back along with the need for it to be sector-led. I accept that point and welcome that he did not rule out—if the evidence shows that it is needed—responding positively to the call for a national mandated requirement. I look forward to hearing what evidence comes back from that survey and whether the gaps identified from talking to the fire chiefs match those identified in the desktop survey that Samaritans did through freedom of information requests. I take the Minister’s points about learning from the police experience but not seeing it as mapping completely across. His points about the potential role of the college of fire and rescue were also important.
I end by echoing what the Minister said about not assuming that current provision is good enough. Certainly, the research by Samaritans suggested that there is considerable postcode variation even between the fire brigades within an individual region. I am reassured by what the Minister said about properly going away and looking at the evidence and seeing if what Samaritans has asked for is indeed what is needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of suicide prevention training for fire and rescue services.
Hospitality Sector VAT: Local Economies, Employment and Growth
(1 day, 8 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
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
As it is more than 10 minutes past 3 pm and the Member in charge is not here yet, I call Tonia Antoniazzi to move the motion.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of VAT policy for the hospitality sector on local economies, employment and growth.
It is an honour to serve under you chairship, Dr Huq; I am moving the motion on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb). Hospitality and tourism are not just industries; they are major employers, anchors of local economies and a vital part of the social fabric of communities right across the United Kingdom. Yet in my roles as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, we have seen that current VAT policy, combined with a range of other tax pressures, is placing hospitality businesses under significant strain and undermining their ability to compete.
Our inquiry heard from hotels, pubs, restaurants, caterers and tourism operators across Northern Ireland. We travelled to Derry/Londonderry and met businesses on the ground. Their message was consistent and clear: the current tax environment is holding back growth, limiting investment and threatening the long-term viability of businesses that are already operating on tight margins. Hospitality businesses are contending with a perfect storm of rising costs. Increased employer national insurance contributions have also hit the sector, which relies heavily on part-time and lower-paid workers. We heard evidence that it is around 8% more expensive to employ someone on the minimum wage in Derry/Londonderry than it is just a short distance away from the border in the Republic of Ireland.
Businesses also face high business rates and rising energy costs. Hospitality is an energy-intensive sector with little flexibility to move consumption away from peak trading hours. At the same time, consumer spending remains under pressure, particularly in Northern Ireland, where average wages remain lower than the UK average.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The hon. Lady is giving an excellent description of the problems happening in Northern Ireland, but they are happening in England, Wales and Scotland as well. I hold a regular quarterly meeting with my local publicans and hospitality businesses. They say repeatedly that the situation they face at the moment is worse than it was under covid, because at least under covid the Government stepped in to support them. The Government are now penalising them through all the things the hon. Lady just mentioned, such as the business rates increases—for one pub in my area they are going up by £32,000. That is just not sustainable, and there are the national insurance rises, too. Does she agree that although VAT is part of the picture, the Government really need to deal with all sorts of other parts of the tax system?
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member’s remarks are a bit long for an intervention.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Member may question why, as a Welsh MP, I am not calling for a UK-wide reduction. I am not calling for that per se, but I do want to lay out why Northern Ireland is a special case and why it could be useful for the Government to do a pilot.
The more striking issue raised during our inquiry was the impact of VAT policy on competitiveness. Hospitality businesses in Northern Ireland operate in a unique environment, competing not only with businesses in other parts of the UK, but directly with establishments in the Republic of Ireland, and therefore Europe. The Republic of Ireland’s hospitality services benefit from significantly lower VAT rates, including a 9% rate on food and catering services and a 13.5% rate on accommodation, compared with the UK’s standard rate of 20%. That disparity has real-world consequences.
We were told that tour operators organising itineraries across the island of Ireland are increasingly choosing accommodation south of the border because of lower costs. Conference organisers, wedding planners and major event operators are making similar decisions. In many cases, Northern Irish venues simply cannot compete, despite offering excellent facilities and service. The result is real: lost business, lost investment and lost opportunities for growth. I wish to be clear: witnesses did not argue that VAT is the only challenge facing the sector, but many viewed it as the most straightforward and effective lever available to Government.
A reduction in VAT would provide businesses with breathing space. It would improve cash flow, strengthen margins, support investment in premises and staff, help to absorb rising operating costs and enhance competitiveness in an all-island market. Importantly, businesses told us that the primary benefit would not necessarily be cheaper prices for consumers. Rather, it would allow businesses to remain viable, invest for the future and create the conditions for sustainable growth. That is why the Committee has called for the Government to introduce a four-year pilot scheme in Northern Ireland, reducing VAT to 10% on food, excluding alcohol, and on accommodation.
A pilot scheme would provide an opportunity to gather robust evidence. It would give businesses sufficient time to adapt, secure new contracts, influence customer behaviour and demonstrate whether a lower VAT rate can stimulate economic activity, increase employment and ultimately generate broader returns for the public finances. Such an approach would not only benefit Northern Ireland; it could also provide valuable lessons for hospitality policy across the UK.
We have also called on His Majesty’s Treasury to engage with the Irish Government and Tourism Ireland to examine the impact of Ireland’s recent VAT reductions and previous temporary cuts. If there is evidence that lower VAT rates in Ireland have supported growth, jobs and tax revenues, we should be willing to learn from Ireland’s experience.
Hospitality businesses do not want special treatment. They want a fair opportunity to compete, and a tax system that recognises the unique pressures they face and the immense contribution they make to local economies. If we are serious about supporting jobs, encouraging investment and strengthening our tourism offer, we must recognise the role that VAT policy plays in shaping competitiveness. The case for a targeted VAT pilot in Northern Ireland is strong, the evidence is compelling and the potential rewards for growth and prosperity are significant. I urge the Government to listen to the sector and act accordingly.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I apologise for my slight delay in being here, Dr Huq; I had a personal incident back home and I was just on the phone about it.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hospitality and tourism, and the MP for a proud seaside town, I welcome this opportunity to talk about the important and timely issue of the role that VAT policy can play in supporting hospitality, tourism, employment and economic growth.
Hospitality is an important industry for communities across the country, employing around 3.5 million people nationally. On average, it provides work for 5,000 people in each constituency, but for constituencies such as Blackpool South that average figure is more than doubled. Our visitor economy supports local jobs, attracts investment and drives regeneration. Hospitality is central to our economic success and our identity. Hospitality jobs matter to local people and to the town.
For many people in Blackpool, including myself, hospitality gave us our first pay packet, our first reference and our first introduction to the world of work, and for many people that first job in hospitality turns into a career. I welcome the Government’s recent business rates freeze package for retail, hospitality and leisure. That freeze will benefit thousands of businesses in Blackpool. The changes to thresholds will mean that 68% of retail, hospitality and leisure properties in our town will now pay no business rates at all. That is a significant intervention, demonstrating that Ministers recognise the importance of these sectors.
However, we need to go further. Alongside Kate Shane, CEO of Blackpool Tourism Ltd, I continue to make the case for a Blackpool tourism enterprise zone, building on the existing enterprise zone model and extending it to our hospitality and tourism economy to unlock further growth, investment and job creation.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is very nice to hear about Blackpool and everything in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; I declare that I have visited Blackpool on many occasions. Hospitality businesses in the Witham constituency have been hit just as hard by VAT on the sector, as well as by employment taxes and the cumulative burden of increased taxation. Would he consider working with all of us in this debate to get the Government to recognise that at the next fiscal event—which will be next year, or even in the Finance Bill, when it arrives—by making changes to the VAT regime for hospitality, which is such an important sector?
Chris Webb
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I hope that my actions as the chair of the APPG on hospitality and tourism for the last two and a half years have shown that I will work with anyone across this House to support hospitality. The APPG has been quite vocal, including in our inquiries, about why there is a need to lower VAT, and we will continue to make that case.
Thousands of residents in my constituency have backed my idea to build a state-of-the-art arena at the Blackpool Central site, and we also have Government support for this proposal. However, by going further to support our tourism businesses at a policy level, we can give large investors the confidence to come to Blackpool, and ensure its future as a modern and leading entertainment destination, especially as we are in the final of the city of culture contest, which I know we will win.
Blackpool was built as a place of rest, relaxation and entertainment for the working classes, and our visitors today continue to be highly price-sensitive. Blackpool prides itself on being able to offer a good family trip for the price of car parking, an ice cream and a fistful of 2p coins to feed the arcade machines. Thanks to the work of Blackpool council and Blackpool Tourism Ltd, we offer large-scale free events, ranging from our brilliant airshow to the Blackpool Illuminations, which bring hordes of tourists to our coast in search of a family budget-friendly trip.
However, we also rely on families spending much more money than they do already. When offered value for money, they will do so, but small increases in the cost of accommodation, meals, attractions and entertainment influence how long a family chooses to stay.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech about the importance of the hospitality sector and the impact of even relatively small increases in costs for families. Does he agree that the Government ought to drop their proposals for an overnight visitor levy, which will only make accommodation more expensive for the families visiting his constituency?
Chris Webb
The hon. Gentleman has clearly had a quick glance at what I am coming to next in my speech. I welcome the fact that visitor levy receipts will stay local and will support tourism-related priorities, but businesses in places like mine have understandably raised concerns about the cumulative impact of rising costs. The levy is just one more addition to a growing list. What might work in the centre of Manchester does not work in coastal communities like Blackpool.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about Blackpool. I have many happy memoires of large party conferences there back in the day. He is talking about urban hospitality, but I want to make a plea for rural hospitality. My Mid Norfork constituency has 135 villages and 50 pubs, which are the heartbeat of the community; many businesses meet in them, and they are warm places in the winter. They are being hammered by high energy costs and the jobs tax, the tourism tax and the other taxes the Government have introduced. Rather than a £10 billion VAT cut for everyone, can we have targeted relief to rural hospitality venues, which are dying, along with the rural economy?
Chris Webb
The APPG has raised similar issues in our inquiries. We have said to the Government, at not just this Budget but the previous one, that we need to look at support packages, rather than sector-wide schemes. If the money is not available, we need to look at where the need is greatest right now.
The World Economic Forum’s travel and tourism development index places the UK 113th out of 119 countries for price competitiveness. Blackpool faces growing competition from domestic destinations and international markets, where hospitality VAT rates are often significantly lower.
Every £1 spent by a visitor in Blackpool moves through the wider economy to local suppliers, taxi drivers, independent retailers and cleaning businesses. When a family has a good weekend away, the benefit is felt far from the till.
If the Government want to invest in places such as Blackpool to deliver maximum value, they must also consider the tax environment in which our businesses operate. Our town continues to face significant challenges with economic inactivity and young people who are not in education, employment or training.
It is not just the lack of jobs: our young people are navigating entrenched multi-generational poverty, housing insecurity, caring responsibilities and poor health. They deserve the opportunity to get their lives on track. As I have said many times, hospitality is the sector best placed to give them their first step. I therefore welcome the partnership between the Government and major hospitality employers, facilitated by UKHospitality, which will deliver 100,000 opportunities for young people. But if we want businesses to create more jobs, take on more apprentices and invest in training, we must ensure that they have the confidence and capacity to grow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the wider economic impact. East Grinstead has the headquarters of the Caravan and Motorhome Club, which provides access to more than 2,200 campsites, glamping and all sorts of wonderful places. It will be affected by the overnight visitor levy, which means that a meal out and other things families want to do on those holidays just will not happen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is what this means for families?
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. We have half an hour to get everyone in. I hope Chris Webb will conclude so that other people can get in.
Chris Webb
I understand the point the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) makes, and I have heard it from caravan businesses and parks in my constituency. That has to be part of the discussions after the Second Reading of the Visitor Levy (England) Bill.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. No, you are not taking any more interventions. There is a hard stop at 4 pm, and we need to hear from the Front Benchers.
Chris Webb
The Great British summer savings scheme, which temporarily reduced VAT on attractions this summer, is a good case study of the potential impact of policy changes on local economies, employment and tourism. The scheme recognised that targeted VAT reductions can support both consumers and businesses, as can free bus travel.
Take the award-winning Blackpool pleasure beach in my constituency. During the pandemic, when VAT was cut to 5%, the park’s turnover rose, and it recorded an exceptional profit of £10.5 million—the biggest in years. As a consequence, it paid £1.9 million more in tax to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Over the summer, businesses in my constituency were saved because of the summer savings scheme.
What assessments has the Minister’s Department made of the impact of rising costs on hospitality businesses, business investment, employment and opportunities for young people? What assessment has been made of the potential impact on local economic growth of reducing hospitality VAT? I look forward to hearing more from colleagues and to the Minister’s response.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I am setting a hard time limit of three minutes for everyone from now on.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Whether it is a seaside town in Lancashire or on the Berwickshire coast, the story is much the same. In the coastal town of Eyemouth, next to the harbour, stands Giacopazzi’s, which was established in 1898 by Lorenzo Giacopazzi. Arriving in Scotland on his way to America, he instead decided to stay on the Scottish coast to seek his fortune. The business has been run by his family ever since, becoming famous for its fish and chips and award-winning ice cream. The family has recently invested in a new ice cream factory, a bar and bistro, and holiday accommodation. However, Peter Giacopazzi has written to me, as have many hospitality businesses across my constituency, to say that pressure has never been greater. The costs of employer national insurance, wages, energy and ingredients have all gone up. On top of that sits VAT at 20%.
In the borders, hospitality is the lifeblood of the high street. From the hotels of Kelso and Melrose to the cafés of Hawick and Galashiels and the bed and breakfasts at St Abbs and Coldingham, these businesses are often a town’s largest private employers, providing our young people with the opportunity to take that all-important first step into the world of work.
At the same time, many of these businesses in the Scottish Borders, Scotland and across the UK are competing for customers who might otherwise go to Europe. Our hospitality VAT rate is the second highest in Europe. France, Italy and Spain charge 10%, Ireland charges 9%, and Germany charges only 7%. The consequences are bleak. UKHospitality reports that three hospitality businesses have closed every day this year, and nearly 100,000 jobs have been lost across the sector. There is no doubt that lowering the rate of VAT would help save jobs.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), will be aware, the Laffer curve says that if we tax something, we discourage it. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk agree that the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions means they are forcing companies and businesses not to expand and, in some cases, to close down?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We taxed smoking to try to stop people smoking, and the Government’s philosophy seems to be that they are taxing jobs to try to stop people being employed.
During the pandemic, hospitality VAT was cut to 5% to help businesses to survive. The Prime Minister has spoken in favour of a rate more aligned with Europe. Last month’s Budget was the chance to make that change, and it was missed. Business rates in Scotland are, of course, devolved so changes to rates in England do nothing for businesses in my constituency. However, VAT is UK-wide, so a cut would reach every hospitality business in the country, including those in the Scottish Borders.
My ask of the Minister, on behalf of the hundreds of businesses across the Scottish Borders that are desperate for financial relief, is that the Government reduce the pressure on businesses by looking again at a reduced VAT rate for the sector. Businesses such as Giacopazzi’s have served our communities for hundreds of years. Let us give them a fighting chance to survive, Minister.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for being a super sub and introducing the debate.
I also thank all the publicans from across Alloa and Grangemouth, but especially Craig and Greg from the Royal Oak in Alloa for their time and for telling me about the impact that 20% VAT has on their business. Of course, hospitality venues must deal with more issues than just VAT. Those include soaring business rates, which Scottish pubs do not get relief from, the increase in alcohol duty, and crippling energy rates.
There is no doubt about it: the pub game is extremely tough. In Scotland, a pub closes on average every four and a half days. This year, that amounts to roughly 600 jobs lost. It is widely acknowledged that independent pubs often struggle to compete with the industry big guns such as Wetherspoons and Greene King. Those chains can negotiate lower prices for products and absorb loss leaders, and their profit and loss accounts are more able to sustain the cost of overheads.
With VAT at 20%, many independent pubs have to put prices up or cut costs. That may mean reducing opening hours, closing for full days or, sadly, job cuts. It definitely means being unable to grow their business. Quite simply, pubs in my constituency and all over Scotland need help. Reducing the VAT rate would give venues much-needed “breathing space”—something that means a lot to my Chancellor. Businesses could employ more staff and boost local economic growth—something that means a lot to our Prime Minister.
Alloa and Grangemouth has more than 550 hospitality establishments, with more than 3,200 people employed, bringing more than £100 million of annual economic value. Pubs and restaurants are essential to life in Alloa and Grangemouth and all of Scotland. That is why I support calls to lower VAT for hospitality businesses. Minister, let’s get behind these businesses and help them grow and thrive.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I own CellarDoor, a small bar in Covent Garden, so I do not speak about hospitality in the abstract. I know what it means to have to find the money to make payroll in a bad month, to cut a shift I would rather keep and to wonder whether the doors will open next year.
We converted CellarDoor from a disused underground gentlemen’s toilet 20 years ago. We have weathered the financial crash, Brexit and covid, but I have never known it as hard as it is now. The new Prime Minister promised much, but his Chancellor delivered little. The Night Time Industries Association called the Government’s latest Budget “deeply disappointing” and said that it failed
“to deliver the meaningful support”
the sector “desperately needs”.
Raising the business rates relief threshold is welcome, but in Wimbledon just 1% of my local businesses will benefit. The hospitality industry is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential part of the economy, the largest employer of young people and school leavers, and the backbone of communities up and down the country. It invests £7 billion in high streets annually and supports 3.5 million jobs.
Across Wimbledon, the hospitality sector provides more than 4,200 jobs and brings £150 million into the local economy, but our pubs, bars, hotels, restaurants and cafés are feeling the strain. Craig Hurring of Love Wimbledon told me that businesses are facing “a perfect storm” of increased employer national insurance contributions, above-inflation uplifts to the minimum wage and continuing weak consumer confidence.
Nationally, the toll is stark. We are losing the equivalent of 13 night-time venues a week, while 100,000 jobs in the hospitality sector were lost in two years. Something must be done. The simplest lever is VAT. Our current rate of 20% is double that of some of our European neighbours.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman know when the rate was raised to 20%, and which parties were in government when that happened?
Mr Kohler
The issue is absolutely now, not the past. In Spain, hospitality pays a reduced rate of 10%, while across our one land border the Republic of Ireland has reduced VAT on hospitality to as low as 9%. We know that VAT cuts do work because we have done it before, during the pandemic. This summer, we learned that lower VAT brings more people through the door and helps struggling businesses.
Minister, will the Treasury commission a full cost-benefit analysis of reducing VAT on hospitality—not just the headline cost, but also the return in jobs, growth and lower welfare spending? The Night Time Industries Association has produced an analysis suggesting that it would have a net positive effect on the Government’s fiscal position—I think that is what we call a win-win.
In short, hospitality is in crisis. There is no point in the Government giving a little with one hand while continuing to take far more with the other. The time has come for real action, not warm words.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. If not for hospitality, I would not be here today—quite literally, because my parents met while working second jobs in a pub in north London. Later, they ran a small bed and breakfast, where I was cleaning rooms and serving breakfasts from an age I probably should not advertise here. I cooked my first full English for paying guests at 13 years old, and at the same age started working in the local pub as a pot wash. At 15, I moved to front of house at another hotel, where I worked for more than seven years. Hospitality gave me many of the skills that led me to this place, and I care deeply about the sector.
Times are tough. Small businesses across Gloucester tell me time and again about rising energy bills and soaring food prices, driven up both by the wars in Ukraine and the middle east, and by the tax burden they face. But in the middle of this difficult patch, Gloucester’s hospitality sector continues to deliver for local residents. Dr Foster in our docks was named best town pub at this year’s Great British pub awards, a real testament to the team there. We have fantastic independent coffee shops such as Coffee House 43, Forum Coffee and the Roastery, and brilliant restaurants such as Topoly’s Italian on Southgate Street. Just last Sunday, I was in The Fountain Inn for a fantastic roast dinner in between Remembrance Day services.
Many of those businesses have asked for a cut in VAT; I understand those calls, but I also recognise that in the current economic climate, that is a challenging decision for any Government to deliver. Any tax cut, proposed by any party, needs to be paid for, but that does not mean that we should not be supporting our hospitality industry, and in particular targeting support for local, independent small and medium-sized enterprises. I welcome the Government’s recent announcements on business rates: a 20% cut for pubs, clubs and music venues from April and taking around 70,000 smaller hospitality and retail businesses out of business rates altogether.
Jessica Toale
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government cannot go the full way on the VAT cut that some in the hospitality sector are proposing, they should consider Hospitality Voice’s proposal, which is backed by research from Bournemouth University, for an emergency, time-bound cut from 20% to 13%? That would be an affordable alternative way to protect jobs and boost local economic activity.
Alex McIntyre
My hon. Friend makes an eloquent point raising important research from her constituency, and I am sure that the Minister has heard her intervention. I welcome the fact that the Government have made a start on business rates. I have continuously raised that issue with Ministers on behalf of Gloucester business owners, and it is good to see action.
I know that the Minister shares my commitment to our hospitality industry, so it would be helpful if he set out how the Government intend to go further to support hospitality businesses in Gloucester. For future generations, I know how important a first job in hospitality can be. We have 2,500 young people not in employment, education or training in Gloucester; that is why I am hosting the Gloucestershire futures summit later this month at Kingsholm rugby stadium. Can the Minister set out how the Government will make it easier for hospitality businesses to hire young people and offer the part-time weekend jobs that are the springboard for many young people in my city? Our pubs, cafés and restaurants are where Gloucester comes together. I owe my family to the jobs that they create. Let us make sure that they are still there for the next generation.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
There are still nine people left and a hard stop at 4 o’clock, so there will be an immediate time limit of two minutes, although perhaps not everyone will get in.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) on securing this debate.
I rise in support of small hospitality businesses. I hope that the Minister can discern the difference here; I am not speaking about large hotel, coffee shop or pub chains. If the Government are serious about supporting small hospitality businesses, protecting jobs and sustaining our high streets and coastal towns, they must act on VAT for those businesses. There will be real consequences if they do not: fewer jobs, less opportunity and, ultimately, weaker local economies. Yet, at the same time that these costs rise for those businesses, they are expected to compete with a VAT rate that remains stubbornly high compared with those of our European neighbours.
In February of this year, the Prime Minister, then Mayor of Greater Manchester, publicly said that he would argue for a hospitality VAT rate in line with Europe. It was so disappointing that in the first Budget under his leadership there was nothing about VAT for small hospitality businesses. This week, he said that that Budget was incredibly popular. I simply do not know what planet he is on. We have a situation where businesses are struggling to recruit, facing rising employment costs and dealing with high VAT all at the same time.
Ultimately, this is not just about balance sheets; it is about the local café that sponsors the local football team, the pub that hosts community events and the family-run restaurant that has been passed down through generations. It is about The Captain’s Table and Mrs Maitland’s café in Fraserburgh, and the Saplinbrae Hotel in Mintlaw—those are the family businesses that I am speaking about. They are places that bring people together, create jobs, support local suppliers and give our towns and villages their character. They deserve more than warm words; they deserve action. I urge the Minister to look again at VAT for small hospitality.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am proud to represent so many outstanding hospitality businesses. Whether it is the Kingslodge Inn off Flass Street, Daisy Rose Coffee House in Cheveley Park, Adventure Valley in Brasside or the many other independent cafés, pubs and attractions across my constituency, hospitality businesses contribute enormously to community life.
Hospitality is one of the UK’s largest employers, supporting 3.5 million jobs and providing vital opportunities for young people. For many, hospitality businesses provide that crucial first opportunity to gain skills, confidence and work experience, helping them to build long-term careers. In Durham, hospitality is also central to our visitor economy. People come to enjoy our UNESCO world heritage site, which includes the magnificent Durham cathedral and castle, to attend events such as the Miners’ Gala and the Durham Fringe Festival, to enjoy performances at the Gala theatre and to experience everything that our fantastic city has to offer.
At a hospitality roundtable I hosted, many businesses raised concerns about costs and competitiveness, particularly around the UK’s VAT rate for hospitality, which is higher than that of many European countries. As businesses continue to face significant pressures, it is right that we consider how the tax system can best support growth, investment and jobs. I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering growth in every postcode and supporting our high streets. Will the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the impact of current VAT arrangements on hospitality employment and investment? What consideration has been given to the role VAT policy could have in supporting local economies and regeneration in the city of Durham?
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
When a pub closes in Keighley, it is not just that we lose a business: the high street loses footfall, a teenager loses their first job opportunity and a community loses one of the best places for everyone to meet. In my constituency, hospitality is the beating heart of our economy; from Timothy Taylor’s, brewing in Keighley since 1858, to the pubs, cafés and guest houses that welcome visitors, hospitality businesses support thousands of local jobs, and right now, every one is being squeezed by a Labour Government that treat them as a cash cow, and not as the valuable assets that they are.
Ministers have already piled £6.8 billion of new costs on to hospitality businesses through two Budgets, the jobs tax, the cut to rates relief and the Employment Rights Act 2025. Right now, a likely £1.6 billion tourism tax will be hitting businesses like those across Haworth and Ilkley. What is the result? According to UKHospitality, 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost in two years, making up 45% of all jobs lost across the entire economy. One in four businesses are losing money, and one in six fear they could fail within a year. With around 30% of young people getting their first jobs in hospitality, it is the next generation that is paying the price of this Labour Government.
I have three questions for the Minister. Do the Government accept that their Budget has cost the sector hugely? Will they scrap the tourism tax? Will the Prime Minister finally honour his words of February this year and support a VAT cut? The pubs, the cafés and the hospitality sector across Keighley and Ilkley do not want more warm words. They need a Government that stop taxing them out of existence.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
In my constituency, we are incredibly fortunate to have loads of thriving community independent pubs, restaurants and cafés. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) said, many of us had our first jobs in pubs. I have been speaking to a number of people in independent hospitality businesses, such as Greg at Stroud Brewery, the irreplaceable Lotte and Miles at the Prince Albert, Fred Hulls at The Royal Oak in Wotton-under-Edge and others in many other pubs in my area. I welcome the steps taken by the Chancellor in the recent Budget to reduce the burden of business rates. Increasing the small business rates relief threshold has taken hundreds of our local businesses out of the rate systems altogether and many other venues have benefited from a two-year freeze.
One thing that many publicans talk about, however, is VAT, which creates a big financial burden. As has been said, we charge 20% VAT, which is a lot higher than most of Europe. I support a targeted reduction; we must be careful, because a universal cut in VAT for hospitality would cost about £12 billion and give McDonald’s about £400 million, which I am not in favour of. However, a targeted solution such as that proposed in Bournemouth is surely the way forward, so that our smaller pubs and hospitality venues can benefit.
I hope that Ministers will go further and examine the case for VAT relief. We must protect an industry that supports jobs—for many of us, our first jobs—strengthens our local economies and brings our communities together.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Harrogate is often referred to as the jewel in the crown of North Yorkshire’s cultural offering. We have the flower show, the Great Yorkshire Show, the Harrogate International Festival, which is celebrating its 60th year, the conference centre and much more. We have the likes of the Great Knaresborough Bed Race in the town next door, which also has its iconic castle and viaduct. That means that we have a slew of fantastic hotels, pubs and cafés that support the important visitor economy in our area.
After the Budget a few weeks back, I held my second post-Budget business breakfast with the Harrogate District chamber of commerce. The thing that really came through was that they felt that the Budget was a missed opportunity to support the lifeblood of our local economy. They called for a VAT cut, which would help to reinvigorate our high streets, get young people into work and support the local economy, and were left disappointed with the Budget’s lacking ambition.
UKHospitality has a well-publicised campaign, “VAT’s the Problem”, to cut VAT to 10%. I suggest to the Minister that, if a cut to 10% would be too much, he could pick up Lib Dem plans to cut VAT to 15%. If we do not do something, we will see more businesses shut up shop and a further decline in our high streets. All that comes at the same time that the Government are looking to introduce a visitor levy, which would add to and compound those same problems. Will the Minister meet with Members who have made that point today and look again at a cut to the VAT?
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on this debate on an important topic that comes up a lot locally for me.
Like other Members, I have many businesses in my constituency concerned about rising costs and calling for greater stability. I recently had a lengthy discussion with Adam, the landlord of The Royal Oak—I think that is the third Royal Oak to be mentioned today—an award-winning independent pub in Church Eaton in my constituency. He was candid with me about the reality of running an independent pub.
Before I go into detail on the challenges he faces, I want to take a moment to note what an incredible steward he is of this wonderful community asset. The Royal Oak was acquired back in 2020, when members of the village clubbed together and put their mortgages on the line to save it. The period since then has been turbulent, including the pressures of the pandemic, but they have persevered because The Royal Oak is central to village life. Adam has personally committed to giving back to youngsters from the area the same opportunities he got as a young man. Right now he employs two local young lads, but the reality is that he and his family are working many unpaid hours because of spiralling costs.
Another award-winning business in Stafford, Jojo’s Fish & Chips, also shared with me their very real concerns. I will quote the owner, John, directly:
“It’s not a handout we are looking for; it is about creating a fairer system that enables small businesses to not only survive but also to thrive.”
I totally agree with him.
We should be encouraging growth in our communities. I welcome the business rates review currently under way and look forward to its outcome, which will be essential for pubs. However, we must ensure that any cuts to VAT are targeted effectively so that support reaches those who need it most, rather than simply boosting the profits of large corporations that do not face the same pressures as our independents. I would welcome hearing more from the Minister on whether we are considering different rates and targeted approaches so that support can be focused on the independent businesses at the heart of our communities.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I commend the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for securing the debate and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for moving it.
First, I reiterate the SNP’s steadfast, long-standing support for an immediate reduction of hospitality VAT to 10%. From the highlands to the borders, hospitality is the beating heart of our communities, yet our pubs, cafés, restaurants and hotels are being crushed under the perfect storm of soaring energy costs, food inflation and the UK Government’s hike to employer national insurance contributions.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
A very well-known hotelier in my constituency said that if he had known about that national insurance rise, he would not have opened a particular hotel and potentially not given all its job opportunities to young people. Does the hon. Member agree that a targeted national insurance cut for young employees would be a good way to boost the hospitality sector?
Graham Leadbitter
Yes, absolutely. That was well debated this week, and we supported it. The sector pays an unsustainable 82p in business taxes for every £1 of profit. The Prime Minister has previously recognised the situation and has stated his support for cutting VAT for the hospitality industry. Now that he sits in Downing Street he must finally match his past rhetoric with action.
That call does not come from the SNP alone; it is backed by an overwhelming coalition. Over 400,000 people, including 100 leading chefs, have backed the “VAT’s the Problem” campaign, alongside UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association. The public demand is deafening—and nowhere is that clearer than in my community. Of all constituencies in the country, Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey recorded the highest number of signatures—616—to the recent parliamentary petition calling for a 10% VAT rate on hospitality.
We have already felt heartbreaking losses. Many venues are struggling to recover after devastating summer wildfires that kept visitors away from affected areas. Champions of our local hospitality economy are backing that campaign to stay afloat, including—among many others—Scribbles restaurant in Elgin, Harbour Lights café and restaurant in Lossiemouth, the Aberlour hotel, the Apiary café in Dalwhinnie, Antlers café in Newtonmore and, needless to say, the Cairngorm mountain, which has the highest venue in the UK at 3,500 feet above sea level.
The Treasury continually hides behind its static, short-sighted cost figures, but a VAT cut is not lost revenue. It will be substantially offset as businesses reinvest their cash flow directly into physical assets and additional staff. The Treasury should listen to the hundreds of thousands across the country backing the campaign, listen to businesses and residents, and deliver the 10% VAT cut that will release the potential of our hospitality sector.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Whether it was told to me by Ruby and Jordi, who run Bean and Gone in Hertford, or by the team at the Saracens Head, including Laura and everyone pulling pints, what I have been told by businesses is consistent: costs are rising and margins are thinner. Among a number of pressures, VAT was mentioned consistently.
When our businesses look to their European counterparts and see the comparative rates of VAT, it is no wonder they ask why VAT is treated so differently, and is a heavier burden, in the UK. I welcome measures in the Budget to provide relief on business rates, which come up in every conversation I have with businesses, but I understand why some hospitality business owners are asking whether those measures go far enough to address the challenges that they face.
The question is not simply whether we should consider a reduction in VAT, but how that change should be designed. A blanket reduction may sound attractive, but we must consider who it would benefit most. If a cut simply increases the margins of large, multinational chains, we will have missed an opportunity and let our businesses down.
In our towns and villages—mine is a semi-rural community—our hospitality businesses are essential. They provide spaces for people to gather and jobs for young people. They act as anchors for our community. I support a targeted approach to ensure that we support SMEs in the hospitality sector to continue to provide that space for people in our community. When those businesses struggle, the consequences are felt far beyond their four walls: jobs are lost, supply chains are weakened and our towns become less vibrant.
I have had the opportunity to meet representatives of many such businesses and they are both ambitious and community-minded. Members of Parliament may come and go, but those businesses have been in place for years—for decades or even longer. They deserve a tax system that recognises the value that they create, that supports them to provide employment opportunities, and that helps our businesses and communities thrive.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) on obtaining this important debate. As somebody who was brought up in a guest house, this subject is in my DNA. In fact, as a three and four-year-old, I used to really enjoy sitting with the guests for their evening meals. That used to annoy my father massively, so he would drag me out from among the guests. One time, my sandal fell off into the soup and splashed everyone—I assure Members that our B&B model was not completely modelled on “Fawlty Towers”. Although that is a little bit of fun, the reality is that our hospitality industry faces a challenging world.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
While we are talking about incredible hotels, I am privileged to have the Priory hotel in Wareham. However, it does not qualify for either the small business rate relief or the pub relief, because it is an award-winning hotel with 17 bedrooms and a Michelin key. Its rates have gone through the roof, yet it does not qualify for anything. Does my hon. Friend agree that hotels are vital to our small towns, particularly those on the south coast, and that the rest of our hospitality industry will really struggle if we do not look after them?
Steve Darling
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I will come on to some of those challenges. As has been alluded to, one significant challenge is the fact that some of our major competitors in the tourism and hospitality industry, such as Spain, France and Italy, pay only 10%. Those of us who have recently had the pleasure of going on holiday abroad will have seen the real difference in what we are paying for a meal out, and that will affect where people choose to go on holiday.
Something that has affected all of us in western Europe is the massive increase in utility bills following the war in Ukraine. However, other countries in Europe will not have been impacted by the Employment Rights Act, and they will not have had the national insurance hikes impacting on their ability to employ. On viability, I am only too aware of one restaurant in Torquay that has a profit margin of only 4%, so the continued pressures on their world are significant.
Hon. Members have done incredible work in highlighting challenges in their own constituencies, but one issue that has not been raised is the cost of online travel agencies, which is something that I only recently became aware of. It is almost a given that hotels and B&Bs will advertise on Booking.com, because it is how they reach out to the market and land new people in their accommodation. However, the online agency takes a minimum 15% slice out of the pie of their booking, and it will not stomach covering the costs of this VAT policy, which only enhances those costs for the overnight accommodation provider.
The Government need to be alive to these issues when they look at bringing in new charges, such as the overnight visitor levy, which could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many of these industries. Another issue that has been raised—I must admit it is what I have heard from my hospitality industry—is that it was too complex to do the reduction in VAT for youngsters over the summer; it was a massive challenge.
I want to talk about the impact of this VAT policy. Whitbread is a big player in this sector, and in April it announced 3,800 job cuts across the United Kingdom, with its Brewers Fayres and Beefeaters closing. Just in my patch of Torbay, we have had three of its offers close and dozens of people lose their jobs. Tim Rew from the Livermead House hotel shared with me that he has had to let five members of staff go, as he has had to make £180,000-worth of savings in recent months because of the continued pressure. He sees these workers as being sacrificed on the altar of bigotry against business. He has some real challenges there, as do many up and down the United Kingdom.
The Liberal Democrats see the cut from 20% to 15% for a time-bound period as an opportunity to give a boost to our hospitality industry. That could be achieved through an additional levy on the banks where they are making additional unforeseen profits. We also believe that there should be limited cuts to the national insurance hikes that we have seen, which could help get young people into employment, because there have been 100,000 job losses in the hospitality industry.
I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on a time-limited cut to VAT, as hon. Members have already asked for. I also ask whether the Minister has undertaken any review of the VAT reduction over the summer and its negative or positive impact, and whether there are opportunities to expand on that with similar cuts, but in a more profound way for the industry.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
As always, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on opening the debate—as a former Welsh rugby player, she certainly knows what to do with a loose ball.
I speak for the whole Chamber when I say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) in his place. He has been a long-standing champion of the hospitality industry. He serves as chairman of the APPG, and records show that he has been quite consistent on this subject, so I pay tribute to him. He gave an excellent speech.
In fact, with all the talk of cutting taxes on business and slashing VAT, which is of course a tax that we are now free to set ourselves following our departure from the European Union, as the MP for Grantham I can tell the hon. Member that Margaret Thatcher would have been proud of his speech—maybe that is an endorsement he can put on his leaflet in Blackpool. We will see.
Every Member gave a fantastic speech, but it is fair to say that we do not spend enough time in this place talking about the businesses where so many people spend their evenings and weekends. As has been rightly pointed out, there are approximately 170,000 hospitality businesses in the UK, almost all of which are small businesses. They provide 2.6 million jobs, spread throughout every corner of our country. They are economically vital, providing 4% of our economic output, but like so many other businesses across the country, as has been eloquently pointed out from all sides of the Chamber, the sector is certainly suffering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) pointed out that his constituents are suffering just as others are in Wimbledon—in fact, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) speaks with great authority in this area as the owner of hospitality businesses. When he speaks on this matter, we should all listen.
I have been struck by the number of examples that Members from all parties have provided. We all share the desire to help pubs, restaurants and cafés so that they thrive. I am particularly delighted that a Labour Member secured this debate to call for tax cuts on businesses, which the Conservative party of course agrees with. I hope we can agree, as a general principle, that businesses are taxed too much, and that that has a significant negative impact.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government not cutting VAT on hospitality is quite literally a false economy, because three or four businesses shutting a day generates precisely zero income for the Treasury? Does that not strike him as completely bonkers?
Gareth Davies
We have to be clear that any support or tax cut has to be fully funded and cannot drive borrowing and debt even higher, particularly now that our debt has reached more than £3 trillion. Some have suggested that a 10% cut to VAT would cost £10.5 billion. As has been mentioned today, that is not an insignificant figure. I have not heard anybody detail how we should pay for such a significant cut, but I am sure the Minister would welcome suggestions.
A VAT reduction is just one way in which we could support the hospitality industry. If hon. Members are serious about cutting taxes and being low-tax champions, let me suggest a few other policies to help hospitality survive and grow, which are fully funded as part of our £71 billion plan of savings.
One of the measures addresses business rates. As has been pointed out, quite rightly, business rates are a significant contributing factor to the cost base of hospitality businesses. We have set out a plan to abolish business rates for 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which would cost £4 billion. Under Labour, business rates have increased. Some pubs and clubs are seeing their business rates increase by as much as 95% over just a couple of years. The Government inherited 75% rates relief for the sector, and then they cut it to 40%. I urge all Members to support the Conservative plan to bring 250,000 hospitality businesses out of paying business rates altogether.
Perhaps more than any other sector, hospitality relies on workers. Working behind a bar or in a kitchen is where so many young people get their first taste of work, as was set out in many examples today. The £25 billion national insurance tax hike has made hiring young people far more costly—often too costly, when combined with Labour’s increase to business rates. Under this Government, the hardest thing to get right now is a job in the hospitality industry. That is not right and does not help young people.
To address that, we Conservatives have outlined how we would cut in half the national insurance paid by an employer hiring someone between the age of 21 and 24. Halving national insurance would mean more young people getting a good start in life, fewer people starting life on benefits and employment costs cut for hospitality. That would cost £2.3 billion, paid for in full by reinstating the two-child benefit cap at a saving of £3.1 billion.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
On the point about the cumulative impact and pressures on businesses, and underlining the urgency of the situation, I spoke to some hospitality business owners in my constituency last week who told me that I could offer them a newly refurbished town centre restaurant and they would throw the keys back at me, because it is not worth it any more.
Gareth Davies
I am extremely sorry to hear that. The hon. Member represents a beautiful part of the country. People should visit it and give all the custom they can to the businesses that he represents. The reality is that the compound effect of multiple costs and tax rises is having a real-life impact. I hope the Minister is listening.
I have not yet mentioned the holiday tax, another measure forcing hospitality businesses to raise their prices for working families who just want to take a break away and have a holiday. Many Members have compared this particular tax with those of our European competitors. UKHospitality has been clear that the holiday tax will mean that holidays in England are charged double the tax of visiting Paris and 70% the tax of visiting Barcelona or Rome. Only this Government could look at a wet weekend at the British seaside and decide that the problem was that it was too cheap.
We have to take action. There has been so much anti-growth taxation and regulation, I could go on and on, but I will save Government Members their blushes. This Government now tax the pint, the pub, the person pulling the pint, and the bed upstairs—alcohol duty, energy costs, labour cost hikes, the Employment Rights Act or, as some have called it, the unemployment rights Act—all piling on pressure at the same time. This Government keep ordering rounds and leaving the landlord with the tab.
Prosperity begins small. It begins with the pub on the corner, the small B&B and the family-run café. Those are the employers and businesses that we should seek to support. I hope that the Minister will listen to the many concerns expressed across the Chamber. The Opposition share them, and that is why we have set out a number of costed ways in which to ease the pressure on the hospitality industry for all our constituents.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for securing this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has been a strong advocate for the hospitality and tourism sectors. The strength of his advocacy is recognised in all parts of the House, although I appreciate that he might not reproduce the specific terms of endorsement offered by the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies). My hon. Friend’s work—in his constituency championing Blackpool, and in his role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism—is widely recognised in the House and he deserves that recognition.
All Members who contributed spoke passionately about their support for hospitality and the importance of such venues in all our constituencies. We all feel close to and supportive of the pubs, restaurants, cafés and other hospitality venues that give our areas their distinctive character and, of course, provide jobs. Many of us have worked in hospitality at different times in our lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) said that many people have their first jobs in hospitality. Actually, my second job was in hospitality—my first was in retail—but I am glad to be part of the club, I hope, for where we started out. Learning the important skills in the workplace, earning money, going to work, developing social skills and contributing to the local economy are all so important for young people and, indeed, people of all ages.
Our hospitality venues provide employment opportunities. They support our high streets and town centres with their vitality. They are integral to tourism and the visitor economy. Most importantly, they provide spaces where people come together. The shadow Minister said that those are the places where we all spend our spare time. I think that the role they play in all our lives, irrespective of our political differences on how we support them, is something we can agree on firmly.
Vikki Slade
I am excited that Wimborne in my constituency has today been named as a finalist in the Let’s Celebrate Towns competition. What makes it such a special town, however, is the places within it, whether the cafés, the restaurants, the museums or the theatre—all those things. My big concern is that, while I welcome the shift on the small business rate relief that was announced at the Budget, it does not help places in the south, where most of our businesses have business rates of £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000, whereas hospitality relief on VAT would benefit every business, whether in Wimborne or Wimbledon, in a fair and transparent way. Will the Minister go back to the Treasury and think about that again? That is a consistent message from across the sector.
James Murray
The increase in the small business rates relief threshold takes about 70,000 businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure out of business rates altogether and it is just one part of the support for the RHL sector. Alongside that, the 20% cut to business rates for pubs, I am sure will benefit some pubs—
James Murray
The hon. Lady is shaking her head, implying that no pubs in her constituency benefit from that. I will happily check and get back to her to confirm that the 20% cut does apply in her constituency. Also, more widely, we are having a real-terms freeze for all business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. I think it is clear that retail, hospitality and leisure properties of all sizes benefit from a real-terms freeze, a cut or being taken out altogether.
Businesses in the sector have had to contend with a number of challenges in recent years, including higher operating costs. Members have spoken about the impact that that has had. The Government take those concerns seriously. We continue to engage with the sector about what support we can give.
A number of Members have made the case for reducing the current rate of VAT to 10%, and we have considered that case carefully. Let me be clear that we recognise that reducing the rate of VAT would provide a benefit to affected hospitality businesses. Businesses would make their own decisions about how to use that benefit: whether to strengthen their finances, support employment and investment, or reduce prices for customers. As the Minister responsible for the tax system, I have to consider the significant fiscal implications that such a change would have.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Minister talks about reducing prices for customers, yet a Michelin-starred restaurant in my constituency, Starling, cannot pass those costs on to customers because they cannot pay it, and it cannot keep up with the rising costs. The Good Earth, which I think many people will be familiar with, have seven sites throughout London and the south-east; they have lost the opportunity to expand, they are reviewing locations and looking at their employment practices. That is without mentioning the pubs that are struggling to survive, which is completely heartbreaking. Does the Minister agree that not enough is being done to save these restaurants that are so much part of our high streets?
James Murray
I am sorry to hear from the hon. Member about the challenges that the business in her constituency is facing. Let me be clear on the point I made so that there is no misunderstanding: if there were a reduction in the rate of VAT, it would be for businesses to decide how to use that benefit. Were the rate of VAT to be cut, how that was used—whether to strengthen finances, support employment or be passed on to customers—would be a decision for businesses to take.
James Murray
Given we have a 4.30 pm cut-off, I had better make some progress.
As the Minister responsible for the tax system, I have to consider the wider fiscal implications. VAT is one of the UK’s largest sources of tax revenue, helping to fund public services that households and businesses rely on. That means that any proposed VAT relief must be carefully considered against its affordability and whether it represents value for money for the taxpayer. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that reducing VAT on accommodation and food and beverage services from the standard rate of 20% to 10% would cost around £11 billion a year, which is of course a significant amount of revenue. VAT is UK wide but even a similar such cut in Northern Ireland only would cost £300 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said. A more limited reduction would remain expensive: it is estimated that a reduction to 15% would cost around £5 billion a year and a 12.5% rate would cost around £8 billion a year.
Seamus Logan
Does the Minister understand the difference between McDonald’s and Mackenzie’s little café on the street corner? That is the point. Do those figures include large chains as well as small hospitality businesses?
James Murray
The VAT cut would apply to the headline rate of VAT for hospitality across businesses of all sizes as proposed, but targeted support is available in England through the business rates system by cutting the business rates for small retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.
There is a wider question that other Members have raised about the wider effects that a cut would have. I want to address that directly to explain that the Treasury has considered, were there to be a cut in the rate of VAT for hospitality more broadly, what impact that would have, because the Treasury’s costing already takes account of expected behavioural effects, including the impacts on demand and supply and the resulting impact on VAT receipts.
There may also be wider economic benefits, but the evidence from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility is that these effects typically offset only part of the direct cost of a tax reduction, rather than allowing the tax cuts to pay for themselves. Of course, we need to consider how any tax reduction would be paid for, as indeed the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, recognised, because lower VAT revenues ultimately mean higher taxes elsewhere, lower public spending or additional borrowing, all of which have economic impacts of their own.
The decision not to introduce a permanent VAT reduction does not mean that the Government are standing aside from challenges facing hospitality. As many hon. Members have mentioned, in the Budget two weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately prioritised support for retail, hospitality and leisure properties on our high streets. I note that the shadow Minister mentioned a relief that was in existence towards the end of his time in office; he neglected to mention that that support would have ended entirely in April 2025 and it was only thanks to this Government that anything continued.
In this Budget, we have said that from April 2027 every retail, hospitality and leisure property in England will see its business rates frozen in real terms, reduced, or cut to zero. We have announced a two-year, real-terms freeze for all retail, hospitality and leisure properties, capping bill increases at inflation. We are providing an additional 20% business rates reduction for pubs and all but the largest live music venues. Increasing the small business rates relief thresholds means that about 70,000 more retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will pay no business rates at all. When the measures are taken together, half of all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will pay no business rates from April 2027. That is significant targeted support for businesses that are at the heart of our high streets and communities.
Dr Huq, I am conscious that I need to leave time for the—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Actually, we are suspending that, given the debate was opened by another Member.
James Murray
Thank you. I will continue, then. As hon. Members have mentioned, many people take their first step into the labour market through hospitality, and the sector provides flexible employment and apprenticeship opportunities across the country. That is why the Government have more than doubled the employment allowance, taking it from £5,000 to £10,500. That particularly benefits small businesses, taking many of them out of liability for employer national insurance altogether.
Alex McIntyre
Given that we provide some carve-outs for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on business rates, will there be scope in future for expanding employment allowance for those businesses to allow them to take on more people before they incur national insurance contributions?
James Murray
The Chancellor takes decisions on fiscal policy at fiscal events, as my hon. Friend will know, but the employment allowance increase applies broadly across different sectors and parts of the economy, and sits alongside other reliefs in the tax system. I think that this will be of interest to him, given that he asked specifically about helping young people into work. The Government are protecting employer national insurance relief for all employees under the age of 21 and apprentices up to the age of 25. More recently, we have secured a commitment from the hospitality sector to create more than 100,000 opportunities for young people who are not in education, employment or training. That response from industry sits alongside the Government’s work through the youth guarantee and our reforms in respect of skills and employment support.
I might briefly address some other points from hon. Members. Some Members referred to the impacts of energy costs on hospitality businesses, and we recognise the impact that global events beyond our control are having on the costs of running a business in the UK. As all Members will have seen in the Budget two weeks ago, the Chancellor and the Government are taking that very seriously and starting the longer-term reforms needed to make the energy system fairer, cheaper and easier for businesses. That includes action to control new policy costs, reform energy institutions and improve access to grid connections.
Some hon. Members asked about the UK’s treatment of hospitality, compared with what happens among EU countries. A number of European countries do apply reduced rates to hospitality. France and Italy apply rates of 10%, Germany applies a rate of 7% and Ireland applies a rate of 9% for most hospitality supplies. But different countries make different choices about the balance of taxation and expenditure. The UK’s standard VAT rate is close to the OECD average and, as I set out earlier in my remarks, VAT is only one element of the business environment—it sits alongside business rates, which I have set out—and should not be considered in isolation.
Graham Leadbitter
I appreciate all the different taxes and all the different aspects that the Minister is juggling, but given that the now First Lord of the Treasury has said as recently as this year that he supports this proposal, is it not just a matter of time?
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Chancellor makes decisions on fiscal policy at fiscal events, including the one that we had just two weeks ago.
Before I close, I would briefly like to address the question raised—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of VAT policy for the hospitality sector on local economies, employment and growth.
Written Correction
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi
…The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) detailed the tragic case of her 97-year-old constituent, who is having to rely on her children to buy her property to give her some certainty. They are now lumbered with a property that they cannot sell—simply for doing the right thing for their parent. No child should have to go through that process and face those costs. That is why we are making sure that the developers are paying for the work with the developer remediation fund.
[Official Report, 27 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 263.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi):
Florence Eshalomi
…The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) detailed the tragic case of her 97-year-old constituent, who is having to rely on her children to buy her property to give her some certainty. They are now lumbered with a property that they cannot sell—simply for doing the right thing for their parent. No child should have to go through that process and face those costs. That is why we are making sure that the developers are paying for the work with the developer remediation contract.
Written Statements
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Space Activities in Orbit: Contingent Liability Arrangements
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Baroness Lloyd of Effra CBE) has today made the following statement.
A departmental minute is being laid before Parliament today setting out updated contingent liability arrangements arising from new liability and insurance measures announced alongside the space strategy on 8 September.
The UK has a thriving space sector, which is increasingly providing critical services to support our daily lives and which underpins 18% of UK GDP.
Faced with great opportunities in the burgeoning space economy, the UK space strategy available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-space-strategy backed by a record £7.8 billion until 2030, brings the Government’s space investment and activity under one plan to drive growth, strengthen security and back the technologies that underpin modern life.
The strategy details how Government will go further and faster to develop capability and deliver outcomes in our four priority subsectors, including in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing.
Alongside the strategy, the Government have announced reforms to space regulations to reduce costs, reward responsible operators and make it easier for UK firms to invest in cutting-edge missions from satellite servicing to lunar exploration by:
Adopting a world-first variable third-party liability limits approach for orbital operations to incentivise uptake of Government priorities of security and space sustainability, reduce cost burdens on UK companies and stimulate increased commercial investment in the UK’s space sector.
Waiving operator third-party liability for innovative and novel space missions launched before the end of 2030—in-orbit servicing, assembly and manufacturing, and lunar missions—to help support development of high-potential technologies.
Adoption of new world-first models for the provision of third-party liability insurance to support innovation in the City of London space insurance market.
Abolishing decommissioning funds for operators of constellations in favour of a more proportionate approach to monitoring operators’ financial health.
I have therefore today laid a departmental minute updating the previously notified contingent liability that arises from the changes announced on adopting variable liability limits for orbital operations, and waiving third-party liability and insurance requirements for innovative missions.
A potential contingent liability is created each time a space activity—not including launch activity under this notification, as this is covered by a separate notification—is conducted involving UK-licensed entities. The measures announced could create a maximum additional exposure of £50 million for any single claim compared with the current arrangements. In general, the risk of a claim rising is considered to be remote and, to date, no claim has been made for damage caused by a UK-licensed space object.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination.
[HCWS467]
Radio Selection Services: Designation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
Radio continues to be a strong and highly valued medium in the UK, with 87% of the population tuning in every week. However, the means by which listeners tune into radio has undergone a significant shift in recent years. In particular, there has been sustained growth in listeners’ use of voice-activated devices, such as smart speakers, to access online streams of live broadcast radio. The use of these kinds of devices by radio listeners has grown strongly: according to the most recent figures from RAJAR, 18% of total radio listening is now via a voice-assisted device.
In response to these changes, the Media Act 2024 amended the Communications Act 2003 to introduce new powers to protect the availability and carriage of online streams of UK broadcast radio on such voice-activated platforms, defined in legislation as radio selection services. These protections were put in place to ensure that listeners using services designated by the Secretary of State are able to continue to easily access live radio.
Before making any such designation, the Secretary of State is required to receive and consider a report from Ofcom, which was provided on 19 March 2026, and to consult with persons who appear to represent providers of radio selection services, providers of internet radio services, and other appropriate stakeholders.
The Secretary of State agreed with Ofcom’s conclusion that 700,000 UK users is the appropriate threshold for designation. Consequently, between 15 July and 9 September 2026, the Government consulted on a “minded to” decision that Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant, and Apple’s Siri, along with AI-enabled versions of these services, should all be designated as RSS.
Today, we have published our response to this consultation. This confirms that Amazon’s Alexa (including Alexa+), Google Assistant (including Gemini), and Apple’s Siri are all designated as radio selection services. Regulations which give effect to these designations are being made today.
[HCWS469]
Children not in School: Statutory Guidance
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Paul Waugh)
All children deserve to receive a suitable education that enables them to thrive and achieve, and the Government are committed to ensuring that no child misses out. The Government have today launched a consultation on “Children Not in School: Statutory Guidance and Secondary Legislation”. This consultation sets out our proposals to help ensure that every child not in school is receiving a safe and suitable education.
Parents have a right to home educate, and we know many work hard to provide a suitable education for their children. Where parents choose to home educate, they must provide an efficient, full-time education suitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs. Where a child is not receiving a suitable education, it is important that local authorities are able to identify this and take prompt, appropriate action.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 establishes new children not in school measures which, once commenced, will introduce:
compulsory children not in school registers in each local authority area in England and Wales, and accompanying duties on relevant parents and out-of-school education providers to give information for these registers;
a duty on local authorities to provide support to the parents of children on their registers;
changes to the school attendance order process to make it more efficient;
a requirement for local authority consent to home educate where children are:
on child protection plans or were previously on child protection plans in the previous five years;
subject to section 47 child protection inquiries; or
on the roll of a special school by arrangement of the local authority;
a requirement for local authorities to consider the home and other learning environments at the point of children not in school registration and when considering whether children should be required to attend school; and
the piloting of mandatory meetings in selected local authorities, for parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education.
Together, these measures establish a new statutory framework intended to improve local authorities’ visibility of children not in school, including children who are home educated, and to support local authorities to ensure that all children in their areas are receiving a safe and suitable education. These measures will further help local authorities to fulfil their duty to identify children not in receipt of a suitable education, understand the barriers they face, and to support them back into education. These measures extend and apply to both England and Wales. However, the guidance and regulations that are the subject of this consultation relate to England only.
During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, the Government committed to publicly consult on the children not in school statutory guidance and regulations.
This consultation seeks input on the proposed content of the new children not in school statutory guidance. It brings together updated guidance on elective home education and the new children not in school measures into a single, comprehensive document. We are seeking views on the proposed content of the guidance, to ensure that it fosters positive relationships and collaboration between local authorities and parents, and facilitates the smooth integration of new duties into existing local authority functions when the measures come into force.
The consultation also seeks views on the policy content of statutory instruments which will be laid before Parliament following analysis of consultation responses. This includes on details such as the minimum threshold for the duty on parents and providers to share information, which previously garnered some debate during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. Other policy details which we are seeking views on include how local authorities will determine whether education by regular attendance at school is in a child’s best interests for those in scope of the consent requirement and the operation of the mandatory meetings pilot.
The Department for Education is actively engaging with home educating families, groups, and relevant organisations. We have established stakeholder implementation forums to engage with a wide group of stakeholders, including currently home educating families. The new guidance and policy proposals contained in the consultation have been developed in collaboration with the implementation forums, which have provided valuable input and shared personal experiences to help inform decision making.
We will carefully consider the evidence and responses submitted through the consultation and use it to inform further development of the draft guidance, as well as the measures in the regulations. This consultation is an important opportunity to learn from those with relevant experience and ensure that the final guidance and regulations are clear and fit for purpose.
The consultation has been published on gov.uk and runs until 3 February 2027.
[HCWS465]
Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Today, I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the Government approach to supporting business—particularly glass manufacturing and hospitality—within the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme.
This Government recognise the contribution that glass manufacturing and hospitality businesses makes to the British economy, and the Prime Minister’s ongoing commitment to champion UK industry. That support reflects the fact that these industries are a source of pride for many communities and continue to play an important role in supporting jobs, investment and local prosperity across the country.
The Government are already committed to reducing energy costs and creating a level playing field for British glass manufacturers. In April, my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade increased the discount from 60% to 90% under the network charging compensation scheme. This, alongside the British industry supercharger, has exempted eligible glass businesses from certain renewable levies and electricity network charges. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will also cut electricity bills by up to 25% for over 10,000 energy-intensive businesses from April 2027.
Separately, the independent Trade Remedies Authority is undertaking two investigations on imports of glass containers. This includes a dumping investigation on Chinese-origin imports and a subsidy investigation on Turkish-origin imports. Following a recommendation made by the TRA, a provisional anti-dumping measure on Chinese imports was imposed on 9 September. Both investigations remain ongoing.
This statement sets out a further package of measures designed by DEFRA to build on this Government’s commitment to the hospitality sector. This Government remain committed to the principle that producers should contribute towards the costs of managing packaging waste. At the same time, we must ensure that PEPR operates fairly and effectively in practice, and that we support businesses who are trying to do the right thing. We are therefore implementing the following measures:
Consultation on greater fee discounts within packaging extended producer responsibility for highly recyclable (“green”) packaging
Under this proposal, from March 2027, we propose to accelerate a discount for green packaging, benefiting over 90% of glass. Indicative estimates, based on current data and analysis, suggest that this change could reduce green-rated material fees by around 30% to 40% in 2027-28 and 2028-29 relative to the current approach. These are estimates and are highly dependent on the levels of packaging placed on the market in those years, and on the local authority costs which the scheme is designed to fund. This measure would help incentivise businesses to use highly recyclable packaging such as glass, and send a positive signal to business to help stabilise demand.
New legislation addressing cases where hospitality businesses pay twice for recycling for the same packaging
The UK Government and the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have listened carefully to concerns raised by industry regarding the treatment of dual-use packaging under the extended producer responsibility for packaging regulations. We recognise the need to address the issue of PEPR fees applied to packaging that is ultimately disposed of through commercial waste streams. This has been raised by stakeholders across several sectors and across the four nations, and we are committed to ensuring that the regulations operate fairly, proportionately and in line with their intended purpose.
While work continues on a comprehensive solution to this challenge, we are taking a targeted and pragmatic step to introduce an interim measure for dual-use packaging in the hospitality sector.
From April 2027, this will mean that the majority of glass drinks containers supplied directly to licensed hospitality venues will no longer be classified as household packaging, and therefore not subject to PEPR disposal cost fees. This measure demonstrates our commitment to amending and improving PEPR where evidence supports change, while maintaining the wider objectives of the scheme. Analysis indicates that this could result in savings of around 5p per beer bottle and up to 10p per wine bottle, based on the current glass fee. For a pub selling 10,000 beer bottles and 3,700 wine bottles, this could save them up to £870 a year.
Publishing calls for evidence on reusable packaging and the future of modulated PEPR fee structure
The Government will publish a call for evidence on reusable packaging, which will improve our understanding of the opportunities and barriers associated with greater reuse. Glass is one of a number of packaging materials that could benefit from any future measures designed to incentivise reusable packaging systems. Glass manufacturers have indicated they would welcome a move towards reuse and would be ready to step up to meet demand for reusable products.
In early 2027, PackUK will also publish a call for evidence on the future of fee modulation. Modulation provides the financial incentive for producers to move to more environmentally sustainable packaging formats by discounting fees for green packaging. This is currently based on packaging recyclability. The call for evidence will give industry the opportunity to shape the future of modulation to deliver even more ambitious environmental outcomes and inform future policy on how PEPR can support UK industry. It will help build the evidence base for PEPR’s future modulation approach, including exploring how factors such as recycled content, excessive packaging, and domestic recycling infrastructure could inform PEPR fees in future years.
Updating the PEPR cost model
Using the latest available evidence and data PackUK have updated the PEPR cost model for 2027-28, which includes revised evidence on the resale value of glass. This is expected to result in lower estimated fees for glass from March 2027 and will help ensure that fee calculations continue to reflect the most up-to-date information available.
We believe this package of measures demonstrates the Government’s commitment to support UK business and growth, while reducing waste, supporting recycling and protecting our environment.
[HCWS466]
Leasehold Regulation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
This Government made a clear and unambiguous commitment in our manifesto to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. To prevent the renewal of that system, we will legislate through our forthcoming Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill to make commonhold the default tenure.
In the commonhold future that is on the horizon, existing leaseholders will not be left behind. We will legislate to ensure that more of them are able to take control of their buildings, and more easily convert to commonhold as and when they judge the time is right for them. We will also continue to strengthen protections for existing leaseholders in the here and now.
Our forthcoming Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will contain a number of measures that provide existing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes, including capping ground rents at £250 a year, and the abolition of leasehold forfeiture and its replacement with a modern, proportionate lease enforcement system that addresses breaches fairly, with appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight.
However, providing relief to existing leaseholders struggling with the cost of living requires us to switch on a number of remaining measures from the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Leaseholders across the country are subject to a range of unfair and unreasonable practices but chief among their complaints are rapidly escalating and frequently opaque service charges that are placing huge financial strain on millions of hard-pressed leasehold homeowners.
Today, the Government are acting to protect them by introducing regulations that will improve the fairness and transparency of service charges and help transform the experience of home ownership for millions of leaseholders across the country.
We have laid a group of five complementary statutory instruments, three of which are subject to the affirmative procedure and will require parliamentary approval before they can come into force, that will work in tandem to help leaseholders better understand what they are paying for and empower them to challenge charges where they believe them to be unreasonable. Taken together, these SIs provide for the following:
Clearer, standardised information about charges, fees and buildings insurance
From 1 April 2027, leaseholders will gain stronger rights to request information about their service charges, building insurance, and the management, maintenance and repair of their buildings.
From 1 November 2027, landlords will be required to provide leaseholders with a standardised building insurance disclosure document, giving them clear information about their insurance cover and costs, how it was arranged and any financial incentives, relationships or potential conflicts of interest between the parties involved.
From 1 November 2027, all landlords other than social landlords must proactively give leaseholders clearer information through standardised service charge demands, annual reports and accounts. In addition, all landlords will have to provide up-front clarity about the administration fees that leaseholders are asked to pay in a clear, standardised administration charge schedule. Where these costs cannot be established in advance, the schedule must be clear on how these fees will be calculated.
From 1 November 2028, the requirement to provide leaseholders with clearer information through standardised service charge demands, annual reports and accounts will extend to social landlords. We have staggered the implementation of these measures to give affected parties sufficient time to prepare, while ensuring that leaseholders benefit from the reforms as soon as practicable.
Reform of the litigation costs regime
From 1 April 2027, the litigation costs regime will be reformed to address the current imbalance between leaseholders and landlords, thereby removing a significant barrier to challenging poor practice.
Landlords will in most cases need to seek court or tribunal approval before they can recover their litigation costs through a service or administration charge. Leaseholders will also have a new right to recover their own litigation costs from their landlord, with court or tribunal approval.
The measures include a targeted, proportionate exemption for litigation costs recovered via administration charge, which will allow lower value litigation costs incurred by landlords to be recovered without court or tribunal approval.
A further SI concerning litigation costs will be laid later this year and will come into force at the same time as the relevant litigation costs SI laid today.
Fairer and more transparent building insurance payments
From 1 November 2027, commission sharing with landlords and managing agents will be banned and replaced with transparent permitted insurance payments. This will ensure that leaseholders are only charged for specific insurance-related services provided to them by their landlord or managing agent, thereby preventing the cost of excessive commissions being passed on.
[HCWS470]
Reforming Childhood Criminal Records Disclosure
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I am today launching the Government’s consultation “Reforming childhood criminal records disclosure”. This consultation takes forward an important element of the once-in-a-generation reforms set out in the May 2026 White Paper “Cutting youth crime, changing young lives”. It seeks views on targeted and proportionate reforms to the criminal records disclosure regime for childhood offending. The proposed reforms seek to update the regime so that it strikes a better balance between rehabilitation and public protection—between enabling ex-offenders to move on with their lives, while safeguarding the public.
For some individuals, a childhood conviction can continue to have consequences long after the behaviour that led to it has ceased, affecting opportunities well into adulthood. Those who have put their offending behind them should be given the chance to take up suitable employment, secure stable housing, improve their life chances and contribute to society. Many people who offended as children go on to live law-abiding and productive lives.
But we know that holding a criminal record can significantly impede opportunities for future employment. And research consistently shows that creating barriers to opportunity is counterproductive, given that education and employment is associated with lower rates of reconviction. As the rt hon. Alan Milburn highlighted in his “Young people and work: interim report”, too many young people are being held back from building productive, fulfilling lives. For those with childhood criminal records, these barriers can be particularly difficult to overcome, even many years after they have completed their sentence.
Therefore, this consultation proposes targeted reforms that maintain robust public protection while ensuring that people are not unnecessarily held back by mistakes made as children. By helping more people to fulfil their potential, secure opportunities and contribute positively to their communities, we can support both rehabilitation and wider social and economic outcomes.
Proposals we are seeking views on include removing the requirement to disclose for life certain offences such as robbery, which when committed during childhood can reflect adolescent impulsivity rather than an ongoing risk of criminal behaviour and shorter custodial sentences for standard and enhanced disclosure checks. Instead, we propose that these should be disclosed for a specified period.
Disclosure and information sharing are essential to public protection and safeguarding. This consultation does not represent a shift away from that. Rather, it seeks views on specific areas of disclosure relating to childhood offending that can create unnecessary and potentially counterproductive barriers to employment, education and other opportunities. The proposals set out in this consultation are intended to preserve the strong protections afforded by the current regime while supporting rehabilitated individuals to access opportunities and move forward with their lives.
If taken forward, these proposals would help to ensure that individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation are not prevented from accessing education, training and employment opportunities. For many, this could represent the difference between remaining excluded from opportunity and being able to realise their potential, contribute to their communities and build stable futures. As children from ethnic minority backgrounds—particularly black children—and those with neurodivergence or additional needs are over-represented in the youth justice system, these groups in particular stand to benefit from the proposed changes.
The consultation is being laid before Parliament today.
[HCWS468]