Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
The Government are taking a range of measures to strengthen our emergency preparedness. Later this year, we will update a national pandemic response exercise and undertake a full test of our emergency alert system. In April, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also opened the new UK Resilience Academy, which will train up to 4,000 people a year. The Government will shortly publish our updated resilience strategy.
Dave Robertson
We seem to get once-in-a-generation weather events once every couple of years these days. Although some parties on the Opposition Benches do not want to take their responsibilities in that regard seriously, I know that this Government will. On flooding, the village of King’s Bromley in my constituency has suffered on several occasions over the past few years, because all of the roads leading to the village have been cut off—although there has been no property flooding. What steps is the Minister taking to measure and mitigate the impact of that type of serious flooding?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for raising the issue in King’s Bromley. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who are responsible for managing significant flooding. This includes the floods resilience taskforce, which I co-chair with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy). Earlier this year, we announced that we would commit a record £2.65 billion to build and maintain around 1,000 flood defences to protect lives, homes and businesses, which is a 26% uplift per annum on what the previous Government were spending.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answer. When it comes to strengthening emergency preparedness, I have to point out that floods do not just happen in London or Cardiff; they also happen in Northern Ireland, which has the same problems. Has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to her counterparts in the province to ensure that, when it comes to emergency preparedness, the Department and the councils that have responsibilities in this area work together as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that we can do the same thing wherever we live?
Ms Oppong-Asare
We like to work with the Northern Ireland Executive on this issue. It is important that we share best practice and deal with the problems across the board.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Cyber-defence is an important part of our national security, with daily attacks against Government, businesses and individuals. Members across the House will have seen the recent attacks against British household names such as Marks & Spencer and the Co-op and, indeed, the Government’s own Legal Aid Agency. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced that responsibility for public sector and Government cyber-security will sit with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That will strengthen technological resilience by better integrating cyber-security and expertise into the Government Digital Service.
Daniel Francis
In recent weeks, we have seen a series of cyber-attacks on retailers, including on my former employer, Marks & Spencer, and on Government services such as the Legal Aid Agency. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions he has had with the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre and others to ensure that these incidents are dealt with as swiftly as possible and that more is done to prevent such attacks succeeding in the future?
Pat McFadden
Earlier this week, I met the chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre, which works with impacted organisations to investigate what has happened and who is responsible and to help them rebuild. It has been working with all the organisations that have been hit by recent cyber-attacks. I also made a speech about these issues at the CYBERUK conference in Manchester a few weeks ago.
Susan Murray
I thank the Minister for his answer. As has been mentioned, we have recently seen attacks against private institutions, with groups such as Marks & Spencer being targeted. I would be very interested to learn about the approach that has been taken by the statutory organisations and those in the military sphere, but I would like to know what efforts have been made to protect private businesses from cyber-attacks and to ensure that my constituents in Mid Dunbartonshire and people across the UK have access to their daily essentials.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The National Cyber Security Centre offers advice, guidance and tools such as Cyber Essentials to businesses to help them prepare as best they can for attacks. Unfortunately, organised crime carries out some of these attacks, and the extortion of money is often at their root. It is really important that Government, business and individuals prepare as best we can to act against the bad actors who are trying to explore cyber-vulnerabilities and often, as I said, extort money.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Government’s own cyber experts Innovate UK have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London. The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super-embassy poses a super-risk. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister’s office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants. Perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up: are the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist party, or has the Deputy Prime Minister got it wrong?
Pat McFadden
When it comes to both engagement with China and with an issue like this, we will engage properly while always bearing in mind our own national security considerations. The approach we do not adopt is to withdraw from engagement, which the previous Government did for a number of years—flip-flopping from that to the previous era that they called the golden era. We will engage with China when it is in our economic interest, but we will always bear our national security interests in mind.
Alex Burghart
The previous Government did not engage—sorry, they did not disengage. At the heart of this are two simple facts. First, the Government already know that this site is a security risk. It is a security risk to the City of London and, through it, our economy and the economies of all nations that trade in London. Secondly, the Government have the power to block it. Ireland and Australia have both already blocked similar embassy developments. Why are this Government too weak to act?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman was right the first time when he said that the previous Government did not engage enough. As I said, a decision on this application will be taken with full consideration of our national security considerations. Those considerations are always part of these decisions, and our engagement with China and other countries. Where I agree with him is that when it comes to national cyber-security, we must bear in mind state threats as well as non-state threats, and that is very much part of our thinking as we respond to what is going on in the cyber-sphere.
Mr Speaker
Hopefully Lancashire will help with that with the new centre at Samlesbury.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
We have been clear from the outset that we want to govern in a joined-up way, though as we all know the DNA in the departmental system is strong and has lasted a long time. Delivering our plan for change will require Departments to work together, whether that is to build more houses, give children the best start in life—today we announced access to free school meals for children of people on universal credit—or to protect the country against crime and security threats. It is very important that these are not goals of Departments but of the Government, and that is why we work together to achieve them.
Peter Prinsley
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is privileged to host thousands of servicemen and servicewomen from RAF Honington, RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall. They play a crucial part in the lives of our towns and villages. Can the Minister assure me that the Ministry of Defence is working with other Departments to ensure that places such as Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will benefit from the announcements in the strategic defence review in the form of jobs, housing, investment and apprenticeships?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend raises an important point. When the Prime Minister announced the strategic defence review a few days ago, he was clear that the uplift that has been approved by the Government in defence spending is a matter not just of the Ministry of Defence budget, but of industrial policy and skills policy. For example, we have announced an extra £1.5 billion for munitions over the next five years, creating six new munitions factories and over 1,000 jobs. It is really important that these investments are of benefit to different parts of the country as we make the necessary investments to improve our defence and national security in response to a changing world.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s words on wanting a more joined-up Government, but I have concerns that the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are not working well enough together both generally and specifically on cross-Solent transport to the Isle of Wight. Will he encourage better joint working between those Departments, both generally and specifically for that most important issue for my constituents where clearly Local Government and Transport need to work together to create regulation to improve passenger experience?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member makes a strong point. I spend every day encouraging Departments to work together, but he will have heard me say that departmental DNA is strong. He is right that if we want to achieve things, we must overcome departmental DNA sometimes and ensure that Departments work together to deliver good projects. That is exactly what we are trying to do.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
A key function of joined-up Government is joined-up procurement, and I have had the pleasure of working with the Crown Commercial Service as a supplier for over 15 years. There is an ongoing issue that the CCS runs its major procurements during holiday exercises, and this summer is no different. The construction professional services framework, which is worth billions of pounds, has been delayed and will run over the summer, meaning businesses and families have to cancel summer holidays and change their plans. What more is the Department doing to address the culture in the CCS of “buyer knows best” and not respecting supply chains?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the CCS. We have tasked the CCS with working with suppliers and reviewing how it runs frameworks to maximise the spend with small and medium-sized businesses. That should include the timing of the framework so that everyone can take part as best as possible.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
A couple of weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement at CYBERUK about the Golden Valley development in my constituency, which was welcomed in the constituency. Since then, a decision has been made on joining up Government with the functions of public sector and on Government cyber-security moving from his Department to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Is he having discussions as part of that process to ensure that his DSIT colleagues are well aware of the huge opportunities and the risks to that project at west Cheltenham?
Pat McFadden
I referred to the machinery of Government change that we announced a few days ago. We are building up a real sense of expertise in DSIT, and we thought it made sense to make that change to bring together the operational and security parts of cyber policy. I am sure that my colleagues in DSIT are well aware of the hon. Member’s views and of the importance of the issues that he raised.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The historic deal that we signed with the EU on 19 May is in our national interest and good for bills, borders and jobs. It slashes red tape and bureaucracy, boosts British exporters and makes life easier for holidaymakers. Indeed, I am delighted to confirm that Faro airport in Portugal will start the roll-out of e-gate access to UK arrivals this week.
Josh Dean
After years of closed doors under the Conservative party, I warmly welcome this Labour Government’s landmark deal with the European Union and the opportunities that it will open up for our young people again. I welcome in particular the commitment to working towards a youth experience scheme and to exploring a return to the Erasmus programme. Will the Minister set out what progress the Government have made on the talks thus far, and will he reassure the young people in my constituency that we will move at pace to deliver?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We have agreed that we will work towards a balanced, capped and time-limited youth experience scheme. We will also work towards Erasmus+ association on much better financial terms for the UK. The exact parameters will be subject to negotiation, but we want to move forward as quickly as possible.
Wera Hobhouse
I am so pleased that there is cross-party agreement in welcoming a new youth experience scheme. My young constituents in Bath are unequivocal that they want the UK to join Erasmus+ again, because that gives them the best opportunities for study, training and internships abroad. Will the Minister reassure my young constituents in Bath that joining Erasmus+ will be one of the highest priorities for the Government as they enter into further negotiations with the EU?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Certainly, there will be great opportunities for young people, both in the youth experience scheme and in associating with Erasmus+. I too welcome the cross-party consensus—even the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), backed the youth experience scheme in the debate a couple of weeks ago.
Jon Pearce
Today is starting to feel like a bit of a love-in. Last week, I met a group of constituents who presented me with a petition that demands better access for young people to learn and work in the EU. I have heard the Minister’s responses to the last questions, but will he reassure those young people in my constituency that there will be opportunities for them to learn and work in the EU in the very near future?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We will see how long the love-in will last. None the less, the deal provides great opportunities for young people. As I indicated a moment or two ago, we will work towards establishing a balanced youth experience scheme that is time-limited, capped and subject to visa controls, like the 13 we already have with different countries around the world.
Sojan Joseph
Local businesses across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages have warmly welcomed the new agreement that this Government have signed with the European Union, telling me that it will make it easier for them to sell their products to our largest trading partner. Does the Minister agree that to build on that agreement, everything possible should be done to find long-term solutions to current post-Brexit uncertainties, such as the entry/exit system and the regular deployment of Operation Brock on the M20, to help UK-based businesses further develop trading links with Europe?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend’s local businesses are in agreement with many others that welcomed the package with the EU. It cuts red tape and opens up access to the EU market.
On Operation Brock, the deployment is a decision for the Kent and Medway resilience forum, but the Department for Transport and Kent partners are working to keep it and other traffic management measures under review to ensure that they are designed and implemented in the most effective way, through actions such as traffic forecasting, using better data and exploring the use of AI for that purpose.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I do not know how much longer the love-in will last. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] I will start off nicely.
The Minister has been commendably clear that the youth mobility scheme must be capped, and has made comparisons with agreements reached by the previous Government with countries such as Australia, Canada and Uruguay. He will know that last year 9,750 youth mobility visas were issued to Australian nationals, 3,060 to Canadians and just 140 to Uruguayans. Will he be equally clear in setting out what he thinks would be a reasonable level for that cap, or is it just a matter of whatever Brussels tells him he has to accept?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It certainly will not be; it will be subject to negotiation. I genuinely welcome the Opposition’s support for a youth mobility scheme. I think it came as a bit of a surprise to some of their Back Benchers in that debate, but none the less I welcome it. What I have said—and this is what the wording of the common understanding sets out—is that it has to be balanced, capped and time-limited. That is the negotiation we will take forward.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am going to resist all attempts to involve me in a love-in. However, the Liberal Democrats very much welcome the progress that has been made in the UK-EU reset. We are particularly pleased to see the Prime Minister listen to our long-standing calls on a defence fund, on a veterinary scheme and on youth mobility, or youth experience—whatever we are calling it now. The Minister knows that I am going to continue to press him on the matter. We welcome the announcement, but we need more certainty of the scheme’s scope and timescales. I am thinking particularly of those young people who want to start making plans for their future, perhaps not for this summer but maybe for next. Will the youth experience scheme be open to them? Can they start to plan for experiences in the EU? May I press the Minister for more detail on the timeline for introducing the scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support. In fairness, she has been supportive of the youth experience scheme throughout. Having secured the agreement at the summit, we will obviously move now into a different phase of the negotiations, looking at implementation, whether that is in terms of the link with the emissions trading systems, the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement or the youth experience scheme. We obviously want to move forward as quickly as we can with implementation.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
There is no question but that the new arrangements we have with the European Union will grow our economy. It will put more money in the pockets of working people, and the proof will be there for all to see as it eases pressure on food prices and cuts red tape—more prosperity, more safety, more security—but unfortunately, it seems that the Opposition’s position is to unpick all of that.
Mr Mohindra
The Government continue to celebrate last month’s latest EU surrender deal, continuing their long-term ambition to undo the results of a democratic vote that their leadership has never agreed with and is doing its best to reverse at every opportunity. The Government have already proven that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Can the Minister reassure the House that this Government have no further intentions to surrender any more hard-won Brexit freedoms?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The only thing that has been surrendered is the credibility of the Conservative party. This Government have used the independent post-Brexit trade policy to secure a deal with India, a deal with the United States, and a deal with the EU that is good for jobs, good for bills and good for borders. The Conservatives will have to explain at the next election why they want to undo all of it.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The state has to reform to secure better value for money and outcomes for the public, and to ensure that government better reflects the country it serves. I often say that I want a civil service that speaks with all the accents of this great country. We are committed to half of UK-based senior civil servants being based outside London by the end of the decade. Last month, we confirmed plans to relocate thousands of civil service roles to 13 towns and cities across the country. The aim is to bring the civil service closer to local communities and to bring good employment prospects to different parts of the country.
Ian Lavery
I welcome that reply, and it is really progressive that the Government are now relocating jobs away from London, but can I urge the Minister to look closely at how people in places like my constituency of Blyth and Ashington—people everywhere, in rural and semi-rural constituencies as well as in more urban ones—can benefit from this fantastic policy? We all need to be able to benefit from this policy, not just certain peoples in city constituencies.
Pat McFadden
I very much hear what my hon. Friend says. I cannot stand here and say that there will be a civil service location in every single constituency in the country, but we are happy to have dialogue with MPs and local authorities from all parts of the country to get the biggest benefits possible from these decisions to locate civil service jobs around the country. The truth is, in this day and age, not everyone has to work in central London. We can get better value for money and, as I said, a public service that is closer to the public it serves.
Chris McDonald
I particularly welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying that he would like to hear more accents from different parts of the country in the civil service. Billingham in Stockton North is home to the UK’s biggest biomanufacturing cluster, and we are also somewhat exposed to international trade with our steel, chemical and automotive sectors. I very much welcome the expansion of the Darlington economic campus in the area of business and trade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will provide good jobs for my constituents in Stockton and Billingham, and will he ensure that policy implementation is closer to the source of economic activity?
Pat McFadden
We have the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), with us today. He pushed for the Darlington economic campus, which is a good innovation, and I know the current Chancellor of the Exchequer values it greatly. We want not just to relocate jobs, though that is important, but to have thematic campuses that can build up real areas of expertise, whether in digital skills, financial skills, energy skills and so on, to make a real difference to the communities in which these offices are located.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the CDL for what he said, because the Darlington economic campus has been a huge success. It recently passed the milestone of 1,000 jobs, but crucially, 80% of those people were recruited locally, providing opportunities for constituents in my rural area and across the north-east, as we have heard.
The Darlington economic campus is also pioneering a very strong cross-Government approach to working, which is helping to combat the strong departmental DNA that the CDL mentioned. Will he join me in praising the leadership team at DEC for establishing themselves as an indispensable part of Government policymaking, and will he join me in ensuring that Darlington can serve as a model template for other campuses across the UK?
Pat McFadden
I join the right hon. Gentleman in praising the leadership team at DEC. He touches on a very important point, because we do not want just to relocate jobs; we want people to have a good career path, too. In some of the civil service offices I have visited around the country since last year, people have raised the question, “Can I pursue a career here that gets me promoted?” It cannot just be about relocation; it has to be about the chance to build a career in these places.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
My party was pleased to hear the announcement that GB Energy is coming to Aberdeen, which we have consistently said is the only sensible place for it, as Members would expect an Aberdeen MP to say. Given that GB Energy will bring a maximum of 1,000 jobs over the next 10 years, will the right hon. Gentleman please encourage his ministerial colleagues not to suggest that those jobs will replace the 400 jobs a fortnight that we are set to lose in the offshore energy industry over the next five years?
Pat McFadden
Investment in renewables is an energy policy, but it is also an economic and employment policy. I can assure the hon. Member that investment from both the public sector and the private sector will see many good new jobs created in new sources of energy over the coming years and decades.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the relocation of civil service jobs across the country. With a recent study showing that Dudley has high levels of economic inactivity, what reassurances can my right hon. Friend give me that young people in Dudley will have every opportunity to build their career in the civil service, whether through training, apprenticeships or mentorships?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear my strong enthusiasm for greater employment opportunities for young people in the Black Country. When we made the announcement about the relocation last week, we also announced a new apprenticeship scheme, because we not only have to change location; we also have to change recruitment patterns if we are really to get a civil service that speaks with all the accents of the country.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
When the Minister is moving civil service jobs outside London, may I remind him that there is much more to the north than just Manchester and Leeds? Why are the Government moving the Information Commissioner’s Office away from Wilmslow to Manchester, and what assessment has been done of the impact of that move on the economy of Wilmslow?
Pat McFadden
Mr Speaker, as you can see, this issue will prompt a lot of Members to stand up for their areas, and they are quite right to do so. As we do this, we will try to bring things together in a way that creates real expertise, and it is not just about cities; it is about other urban and semi-urban areas, too. The technology that allows us to move jobs outside London also allows us to do that.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Intelligence and Security Committee does important and valuable work. The Cabinet Office engages constructively with the Committee and will continue to do so over the coming months. We have agreed to the Committee’s requested uplift on budgeting and resourcing, which should help it do its job properly over the course of the next Parliament. We are also working with the ISC to identify the best operating model.
Sir Edward Leigh
Has the Minister had a discussion with the Intelligence and Security Committee as to why our normally sophisticated operations have not succeeded in making any significant dent in smashing the gangs and stopping the boats? Perhaps he might ask the Committee whether its view is that such is the pull factor and the desperation of these people that the only way we will stop the boats is to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was going to do: arrest them, deport them and send them back to where they came from.
Pat McFadden
I am not quite sure that was the previous Government’s plan—maybe the right hon. Gentleman wishes it was. This is a hugely important issue for us. It is a security issue as well as an immigration issue. Of course, international policing and security operations to stop these gangs and this trade is a vital part of trying to combat it.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is unique, made up of Privy Counsellors from both Houses. However, last month the Committee took the highly unusual step of publicly criticising the Government for their failure to allow the Committee the staff and independence to fulfil its role overseeing the circa £3 billion annual spend, for which
“there is no oversight capability.”
The Committee is led by an experienced Labour peer, and it just wants the basics: to have staff who are not totally beholden to the Cabinet Office, so that they can do their job on behalf of Parliament and the country, and to meet the Prime Minister. The work of our intelligence services has never been more important, given the grey zone that states are acting within at the moment, which must be properly overseen.
I asked a written question about when the Prime Minister would deign to meet the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), said that one was being arranged. Has that now happened? I also asked written questions about the independence and resources of the Committee and was told that discussions were ongoing. On a matter of this seriousness, does Parliament not deserve more than fob-off half-answers, and will the Minister provide further details now?
Pat McFadden
I do not think the shadow Minister listened to my first answer. For the avoidance of doubt, I said that we have agreed to the Committee’s requested uplift on budgeting and resourcing. Of course, the Prime Minister will be happy to meet the Committee at a convenient time that both can agree.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
Civilian gallantry awards rightly recognise the bravery of people who put themselves at risk to save or attempt to save another person’s life. Honours policy is not the gift of Ministers, as it is overseen by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. However, long-standing practice over many decades is that the incident must have taken place in the last five years, and the only exception to this is where legal proceedings are ongoing.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the Minister for her answer and for meeting me. She knows that I have been supporting the families of PC Taylor and DS Hunt in the search for recognition of their bravery, which resulted in their deaths some years ago. They cannot understand why there is a committee to consider historic military medals but not civilian ones. It appears to them that one set of people who put themselves in harm’s way to protect our country can be recognised, but another set cannot. I appreciate what the Minister said, but can we look at instituting an equal committee for civilian honours? These families just want the proper recognition that historical administrative failures prevented them from receiving.
Ms Oppong-Asare
I know that the hon. Member is frustrated and has worked really hard on this. I express my deepest sympathies to the families of DS Hunt and PC Taylor. I am sure she will agree that it is good that their families were awarded the Elizabeth Emblem by His Majesty in December, in recognition of the sacrifice they made. Honours policy is not in the gift of Ministers; as I mentioned, it is set out by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. I recognise that she has written to the chair of the committee on this issue, and I am sure he will reply.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Payments to infected people started at the end of last year. The Government expect payments to affected people to start by the end of this year. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which is independent of Government, publishes updated figures fortnightly. As of 3 June, it has contacted 1,360 people to begin a claim and made offers to 324 people, totalling £253 million. There is much further to go, but progress is being made in delivering justice to the victims of this devastating scandal.
Matthew Patrick
In Wirral West, my constituent became a victim of this scandal over 50 years ago when she was a child, and it has affected her life ever since. In her own words, victims have gone through horrible levels of distress, and now they wait for compensation. That wait is not just for financial security; it is for closure. Could the Minister please give me and my constituent assurances that the speed at which the payments will be made will be ramped up?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend’s constituent is entirely right to talk about the deep distress that victims have been through. IBCA is contacting an average of 100 people to start their claim every week, and expect to have brought into claim all those who are infected and registered with a support scheme this calendar year. I will continue to support IBCA to deliver compensation as quickly as possible.
Kate Osamor
The infected blood inquiry heard from black and Asian victims who say that they were even more dramatically let down due to discrimination, which has helped to create an understandable mistrust of the authorities and a lack of faith that justice will be done. Please could the Minister ensure that he does all he can to reach out to all communities to encourage everyone who is entitled to apply for the compensation scheme to do so?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to reach out to all communities and ensure that every single victim secures justice. I assure her that that is absolutely what the Government are committed to doing.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the progress that is being made by IBCA. Of course, the Minister is not directly responsible for how quickly that is rolling out. I note that IBCA has announced that its plan is to prioritise those infected who are still alive; indeed, my constituent Daryn Craik was contacted last week. I suggest that the Minister set up a metric that IBCA could agree to for the time between when people are contacted and when they receive their payment. He could then report that interval back to the House, which would hold IBCA to account on the delivery for these infected people, who have suffered for too long.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I again pay tribute to my predecessor as Paymaster General for the work he did in standing up for the victims of this scandal. He is right to raise the case of his constituent, and about the balance between respecting IBCA’s independence and the levers, assistance and support that Ministers, and I specifically, can offer to IBCA. I would be more than happy to have a discussion with him about his specific suggestion.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent Phill is one of the 916 people in the special category mechanism who were suddenly and inexplicably excluded from the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme when it was published in February this year, even though the Government’s expert group had said in August last year that they should be compensated. Why did the criteria informing the eligibility for the scheme change without explanation, and can the Minister please provide a list of all the conditions included in the core award?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. Components of the SCM criteria are planned in both the core awards and the supplementary route, and those in receipt of SCM payments can continue to receive those payments under the infected blood support schemes route. However, as I said in my evidence to the inquiry only a few weeks ago, that is a matter that I will consider further.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
We want to see a civil service that delivers for the public. The reforms that we are pushing through include greater adoption of technology; relocating civil service jobs around the country, as we have discussed; and, critically, a focus on outcomes in key public service areas, not just the processes that lead to them.
Marie Goldman
Many of my Chelmsford constituents are civil servants who travel into London most days of the week to perform their jobs. Last month, a Centre for Economics and Business Research report revealed that the UK may need 92,000 more public workers by 2030 to maintain the same level of output, due to falls in productivity in the sector. However, the Cabinet Office has refused to comment on reports in recent days that the Government plan to cut the number of civil servants by 10% by the end of the decade, which will have an impact on my Chelmsford constituents. Will the Minister confirm today whether a 10% cut to civil service headcount is planned and if any of that will take the form of compulsory redundancy?
Pat McFadden
It is fair to ask for productivity improvements from civil servants on behalf of the taxpayer. We have had an increase in hiring over the past 10 years. We do not have a target for a headcount reduction—that was tried under the last Government and did not work—but we do have a target for reduction in admin and overhead spend. We want to work with civil servants on how that will be done. I say to the hon. Lady that when the taxpayer is committing funds to public services, we want to ensure we get maximum productivity in the public sector; we cannot just resign ourselves to lower productivity and the answer always being to hire more people.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
How is the Cabinet Office working with the Department of Health and Social Care to bring down waiting lists, not just in Blackpool but across the UK?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend will know that waiting lists have fallen by around 200,000 since the election. We set an aim of 2 million extra appointments in the first year; we have not had 2 million extra appointments but 3 million, and the first year is not yet over. We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on that. We know it is just the start: it is a good start, but we have a long way to go to get the health service back to the levels that we want to see.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
In April, we launched the UK Resilience Academy. We will be undertaking a full national pandemic response exercise that will test the UK’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic. I have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to identify the gaps. As a result, we have developed a new risk vulnerability map to identify areas with high numbers of people who may need more support in a crisis.
Perran Moon
After a decade of under-investment in our critical minerals industry, the Conservative Government have left the UK wildly over-reliant on Chinese supply chains. In order to strengthen our national economic resilience, does the Minister agree that the UK’s industrial strategy must support rapid acceleration of domestic production and processing of critical minerals?
Ms Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the industrial strategy, which will be published shortly. It will set out our vision to deliver growth and economic security and resilience. Alongside that, the Government are working closely with industry to publish a new critical minerals strategy this year, to help secure our supply chain for the long term and drive forward the green industries of the future.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Economic resilience is a key part of our national resilience. One of the strongest ways in which the Government can have it is to support the delivery of goods and services via British companies in the first instance. Does the Minister agree? Can he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to bolster procurement policies so that they put British supply chains first?
Ms Oppong-Asare
This Government are committed to working with and supporting British industries. That has been at the heart of our plan for delivery, which is why we have worked across and engaged with industries. Our industrial strategy is key to ensuring that that happens.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Since our last oral questions session, the Government have secured a historic agreement with the European Union that removes a huge amount of cost and bureaucracy from our food and drinks industry, that backs British jobs and that will help British consumers. I thank the Paymaster General for all his excellent work on securing that agreement. We have also set out details of how we will reform the state, moving thousands of civil service jobs around the country and launching a new apprenticeship scheme so that young people, wherever they live, have a better chance of good work in the public service.
David Chadwick
This week, I uncovered the Government’s shocking decision to designate the Oxford to Cambridge railway line as an England and Wales project. It is clearly nothing of the sort, and the decision will cost Wales £360 million-worth of funding for our own network. Will the Minister commit to devolving full rail infrastructure powers to Wales in this Parliament?
Pat McFadden
I urge the hon. Member to have a little patience until the spending review in a few days’ time. We got a taste of it yesterday, with the Chancellor announcing funding for major transport projects around the country. We are investing in public services not just in England, but right across the United Kingdom. The hon. Member will hear a lot more about that in a few days’ time.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I thank my hon. Friend for his innovative suggestion. He rightly points out that following the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, the Opposition will remain the largest party in the other place. That Bill, which we are keen to see on the statute book as soon as possible, is the first step in Lords reform. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of proposals to bring about a smaller, more active second Chamber that better reflects the country it serves.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already told the House about plans for a reduction in civil service numbers. Since he came into office, how many civil service roles in the Cabinet Office and its agencies have been eliminated?
Pat McFadden
We hope to see a reduction of around 2,000 in Cabinet Office numbers over the next few years. We have instituted a voluntary exit scheme, which will make the management of headcount easier and will come into force very soon.
Alex Burghart
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster very skilfully talked about the future, rather than the past year. I will let him know that during the past year, the number of roles in his Department and its agencies has increased by 828. That cannot give the House a great deal of confidence that his future cuts will be effective. Will he guarantee that that is a one-off and that he will go back and ensure that the Cabinet Office is actually reduced in size?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who regularly produced headcount targets for civil servants that were about as reliable as the immigration targets that the Conservatives also produced. I have made it clear that we do not seek a particular headcount target; it depends on what people do. We are trying to reduce the overhead spend, but we are prepared to hire more people when it comes to frontline public service delivery. That is why we are hiring more teachers and getting the waiting lists down. We are not adopting the hon. Gentleman’s approach; therefore, I will not fall into the trap that he is trying to set.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The package will cut red tape and reduce barriers to trade for businesses; make it easier for businesses to export iconic products such as Melton Mowbray pork pies, Red Leicester cheese and Stilton cheese; and open up wider access to the UK market. That is why it has been backed right across the business sector.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Fellow right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that some political parties have begun accepting cryptocurrency donations—far be it from me to suggest that this might be an attempt to dodge the transparency requirements for donations. Does the Minister join me in welcoming the Electoral Commission’s clear guidance that donations that do not come from a permissible or identifiable source must be returned, and will he be speaking with ministerial colleagues in other Departments about making sure that the forthcoming elections Bill ensures that any political donation involving crypto is fully transparent and in line with our laws?
Pat McFadden
It is absolutely right that as finance evolves, so too must the rules we have to ensure transparency and probity in elections. Therefore, the rules regarding the source of funding and the bona fide character of the donors must apply whatever currency is involved.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
The Government are determined to deliver high-quality public services and better value for money for the taxpayer. We have committed to introducing a public interest test to assess whether expiring contracts could provide better outcomes and better value in-house, and that was included in the national procurement policy statement.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady raises a good point. At the meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions that took place a couple of weeks ago, issues of technology were very high on the agenda. We take these forums for dialogue very seriously, and I think I am right in saying that we can have a discussion on this issue without some of the heat that characterises other subjects that come up.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
My hon. Friend is right to celebrate the recent figures showing that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of this year—a sign that this Government’s focus on growth is beginning to bear fruit. We are determined to drive growth in every corner of the country. The lower Thames crossing, which my hon. Friend has long campaigned for and this Government have approved, will deliver big benefits in Dartford and beyond.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In terms of encouraging public participation in democracy and in politics, I have found that school visits are constructive, even in the far north of Scotland, and that is on a strictly non-party political basis. What thoughts might the Government have about encouraging other MPs to engage in that way? It is informative and constructive.
Ellie Reeves
Visiting schools in my constituency is one of my favourite parts of being a Member of Parliament, and I encourage all MPs to do the same. We will legislate to lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections—when parliamentary time allows, and following engagement and planning with relevant stakeholders—as a way to drive forward participation in democracy.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
At yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, we heard from someone whose father was terminally ill and unlikely to survive to see the compensation to which he is entitled. It is not fair on people who have waited 40 years for justice that they are left at the starting line for compensation. Is there any way we can make a list of people who are in that situation and calculate their entitlement for their estate?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does with the all-party parliamentary group. He will know that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has published a prioritisation list in recent months. I can also update the House that IBCA is contacting an average of 100 people every week to start their claim, and it expects in this calendar year to have brought in to claim all those who are infected and registered with a support scheme.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will know that the UK has some of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and they have huge powers and huge budgets which they use to keep our country safe every single day of the week. He also knows that in any large organisation mistakes are made and public confidence in those agencies is vital. Given that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 is more than 30 years old—there have been some other Acts—is it not time for the Intelligence and Security Committee to have new powers of oversight and even new powers of sanction, so that the public can have confidence that our intelligence agencies have proper scrutiny and oversight?
Pat McFadden
Let me echo the right hon. Member’s words in paying tribute to the work that our intelligence and security agencies do in keeping us all safe every day. We discussed the Committee earlier in these questions. The Government have approved an uplift in resources for the Committee, and we are working closely with it on the best operating model for doing its job as effectively as possible.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Mr Speaker,
“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”—
so said the controversial Ulster rap band who remain on the bill at Glastonbury. Given that is the case, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure the House that no Cabinet Office Ministers will be attending Glastonbury this year?
Pat McFadden
I will not be going to Glastonbury, but I am very much looking forward to seeing Bruce Springsteen at Anfield stadium on Saturday night.
Business of the House
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 9 June includes:
Monday 9 June—Remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (day one).
Tuesday 10 June—Consideration of a Lords message to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (day two).
Wednesday 11 June—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present the spending review 2025, followed by Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.
Thursday 12 June—General debate on the distribution of SEND funding, followed by general debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 June—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 16 June will include:
Monday 16 June—Motion relating to the House of Commons independent complaints and grievance scheme, followed by a general debate on Windrush Day 2025. The subject for that debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 17 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day one).
Wednesday 18 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day two).
Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, followed by a general debate on incontinence, followed by general debate on water safety education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 June—Private Members’ Bills.
Colleagues may also wish to be aware that on Tuesday 24 June and Wednesday 25 June the House is expected to debate estimates.
Jesse Norman
Today has a great double significance. As the House may know, it is World Environment Day, when we celebrate the natural world and recommit ourselves as a Parliament to seek to protect it; and it is also the putative date of birth of Adam Smith, one of my great heroes, who did as much as anyone has ever done to explain the world in which we live. If I may move from the sublime to the sublimely incompetent, this week has otherwise been one disaster after another for the Government.
On Monday, we had to drag the Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box yet again, and she had to apologise—yet again—for the Government’s flagrant disregard for this House of Commons in briefing out the strategic defence review over the weekend. There is no more important issue than the defence of the realm. It is a UK-wide, long-term, all-party matter and has always been treated as such, yet the Government chose to share the document not only with their friends in the media, but with the industry, at least six hours before it came to this Chamber or to Opposition parties. It is a matter of deep embarrassment for the Government and raises serious questions about the private sharing of financially sensitive information. The Leader of the House and the Defence Secretary are both honourable people, and I have no doubt that she has made the case every week in Cabinet for doing such communications properly. It is just extraordinary that these two members of the Cabinet are being hung out to dry every week by the 12-year-olds in 10 Downing Street.
You could have granted an urgent question every single day this week, Mr Speaker, such has been the deluge of important announcements prematurely made outside this House. Today, it is free school meals. Yesterday, it was the reannouncement of Northern Rail spending. The only mitigating factor is that the Government have been so incompetent in handling their slow-motion U-turn on the winter fuel allowance that no one has noticed anything else—though we still await a statement to the House on that issue as well.
What about the strategic defence review itself? We should start by thanking the reviewers for their hard work over many months. I know everyone in this House will want to do that, but if we look at the hard substance of the review, matters become more difficult. First of all, many of the announcements largely repeat the decisions of previous Governments—for example, on submarines, on AUKUS and on warheads. Secondly, and most crucially, where is the funding? Government Ministers have tied themselves in knots over the last few days as to whether the 3% of GDP target is “an ambition”, an aim, or simply to be undertaken “when fiscal circumstances allow” or “in the next Parliament”.
Luckily, General Richard Barrons, one of the SDR reviewers, was more honest, saying that the SDR’s financial profile—the assumptions against which the reviewers were working—assumed that defence will get 2.5% of GDP in financial year 2027-28 and 3% of GDP by no later than 2034. The great irony is that, not three weeks from now, we will have the NATO summit, which will call not for 3%, but for 3.5% plus 1.5%. We are light years away from that commitment. The awful truth is that real money will not begin to flow into the armed forces until the defence industrial strategy and the defence investment plan are announced later this year, hopefully in the proper way to this House. That will be 15 months after the Government took office. It is lucky that we do not have a war in Europe.
Thirdly, where is the threat to our adversaries? No extra cash means no extra commitment, no commitment means no credibility and no credibility means no increased sense of threat to those we face. What do we know? We know that there is a war in Europe in which Russia is moving men and matériel not merely to push on in Ukraine, but to threaten the Baltic states. Ukraine had a glorious victory in the past few days, but we cannot rely on such victories, and we must support it in its struggle against Russia.
What do we know? We know that Xi Jinping has directed the People’s Liberation Army to develop the capability to invade Taiwan by 2027, and we know that NATO allies, who have a collective responsibility to each other, in some cases have a long way to go before they are even at 2% of GDP, let alone 3.5%. Instead of giving real leadership, and putting cash on the table, our own Government are talking about readying the country for war while in reality they continue to dither and delay.
Lucy Powell
Mr Speaker, I understand that today is Press Association parliamentary editor Richard Wheeler’s last day in the Gallery. He has covered our proceedings for 12 years, and I am sure we can all agree that that is quite a shift, with Brexit, covid, six Prime Ministers and many interventions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), all having been covered by him.
As I have announced, on Monday 6 June we will debate a motion in my name to implement the recommendations of last year’s independent Kernaghan review of Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. The ICGS was set up in 2018 in response to many serious incidents of bullying, sexual harassment, unacceptable behaviour and poor culture. Through its work and its existence, strides have been made in addressing our reputation and improving working culture. However, we must continue to do better and to respond. That is why I have tabled proposals from the independent review to strengthen and improve the processes of the ICGS. I have asked its director for a fuller briefing, which, upon receipt, I will place in the Library ahead of the debate so that Members can consider these issues more fully.
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for wanting a replay of the urgent question on Monday. Following some of the questions that were put to me then, I did say that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would come back to the House on some of the issues that were raised. Without going through the whole thing again, I want to be clear about some of the things that did and did not happen. The Government were endeavouring to act in good faith and to follow the procedure and practice for many previous SDRs—and I have looked at all of the procedures and practices for previous SDRs.
We recognise that there is room for improvement—there always is—but I want to let the House know that advance briefings were offered to all Opposition spokespeople, the Chair of the Defence Committee and a select few from the defence community. An embargoed copy of the full SDR was provided to the Select Committee Clerk shortly after 10 am, and hard copies were provided to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople 90 minutes before the statement. As I reiterated on Monday, the full document was laid first in the House in the afternoon. I have spoken with you, Mr Speaker, and the Defence Secretary, who I am sure the whole House will agree takes his responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously. He wants to draw up a clear process for this Government and future Governments to follow, so that the expectations of all concerned are clear.
I really will not be taking advice from the right hon. Gentleman about respecting Parliament. He was a Minister and a Member of Parliament under the previous Government, whom the Supreme Court said had acted illegally by proroguing Parliament. There could be no greater disrespect to this House than that. He also served under the former Prime Minister who was found to have misled Parliament. Again, no worse crime than that could be committed.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about defence spending, but the Conservatives had 14 years in government to get to the 2.5% target. Did they get to 2.5% in any one of those 14 years? No, they did not. When was the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence? Oh yes, it was the last time Labour was in government. That is what we are doing again now, so he might want to look at his own record on that.
I see that today we have had a big move on the economy from the Conservatives—yes, a big move. They want to draw a line under Liz Truss. But where is the apology, because I did not hear one? They finally seem to recognise that crashing the economy was “a big error”, but they do not seem to understand that it is the ordinary working people of this country who are still paying the price for their actions. The Conservatives should be apologising for that, yet the right hon. Gentleman wants to go around spending more money. He does not seem to have got the memo on that.
Let us just be clear. It is really important that we are clear about why we took the decisions we did at the start of this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government left no fiscal responsibility—something they now want to try to retain—and they left huge, gaping black holes in the public finances. Borrowing costs were at record highs and there was a cost of living crisis crushing ordinary people. When markets lose confidence, which is what they did under his Government and what they were potentially doing at the start of this Parliament, and the economy crashes, it is those on low, fixed incomes, such as pensioners and families living in poverty, who see the cost of living going up. It is they who pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes. That is why this Labour Government put economic stability first. That was our first priority, because we recognise who pays the heaviest price when that goes wrong.
I welcome the recognition from the shadow Chancellor today, but it does not seem like everybody got the memo. The right hon. Gentleman seems to want to spend even more money from the Dispatch Box, without saying where it will come from. The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), seems to want to get rid of some of the tax increases from the Budget, again without saying where the money will come from.
Now that we have stabilised the economy, we are putting our values into practice further. We are seeing huge investment in the north and in the midlands on key transport infrastructure, investment in the jobs of the future, bringing down waiting lists month after month after month, and 3 million more NHS appointments. The right hon. Gentleman did not want to mention this, but today we are announcing the biggest expansion of free school meals in years, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. That is the difference a Labour Government make: securing the real incomes of ordinary working people, putting our public services back on their feet and lifting children out of poverty.
Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)
As it is World Environment Day, does the Leader of the House agree that while the UK has beautiful national parks, local parks and green spaces in urban cities such as Southampton are just as treasured and as valuable in bringing communities together and improving health and wellbeing, making such cities the great places that they are? Communities in my constituency enjoyed a week-long Urban Wild festival during the half-term holiday, as part of Southampton’s journey in becoming the UK’s first national park city outside London. Will she join me in congratulating Christelle Blunden in particular, but also the army of volunteers, friends of groups, charities and many more who champion our local nature every day and who are behind Southampton’s national park city campaign? Finally—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please sit down. This is a very important subject and I congratulate the hon. Lady—she did ask me at the beginning and it is fantastic news—but I have to get a lot of Members in today. So, please, I am sure the Leader of the House has grasped the message.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for Southampton’s national park city status, and indeed for the fantastic contribution that green spaces, nature and wild places make to our cities, making places such as Southampton a great place to live.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome reports that eligibility for free school meals is being extended to all children in England whose parents receive universal credit. This is a Lib Dem policy on which we have campaigned for a long time, and it is a positive first step to help to lift children out of poverty. Of course, there is much more to do. Among other much needed changes, we would point to the importance of fully funding the policy for schools and auto-enrolling eligible children to ensure that they get the support they need.
I will also highlight, once again, something that is raised in business questions nearly every week: special educational needs. In March it was reported in the media that the Government will produce a White Paper on special educational needs to address the crisis in schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We are hearing rumours that this White Paper may be delayed until the autumn, or possibly until next year. Children with special educational needs are still without support, parents are still battling with local authorities, schools are still struggling to cope, and councils are still left staring at the prospect of a £5 billion deficit next year from SEND being added to their budgets. Will the Leader of the House implore the Government to, at the very least, provide a timescale for publishing the White Paper?
Lucy Powell
First, I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about free school meals. I know it is a policy the Liberal Democrats have also campaigned on, but it is this Government who have a proud record of advancing free school meals and lifting children out of poverty, which is exactly what we are doing today, and will continue to do over the coming weeks.
The hon. Lady raises the matter of special educational needs, which—she is absolutely right—is raised very often in these questions. I know that it is an issue of great importance to our constituents and to many Members across the House, as I am sure she will accept. I will ensure that any developments in this regard are brought to the House, and that Members have ample opportunity to contribute to them. I am sure she will agree with me that in recent years our special educational needs system has not delivered the outcomes for those who need it most, and that the process is not good for parents and families either. We need to make changes to the system to deliver good outcomes in both mainstream and specialist settings. I will ensure that the House is kept fully up to date.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Just the Tonic comedy festival is coming to South Derbyshire in July, the festival having chosen Elvaston castle as its venue—a place I am helping the local parish council to save as publicly owned. Who does not love comedy? Yet despite being nationally loved and generating billions across live digital streaming and more, comedy remains an economically under-leveraged sector, excluded from arts funding, Government reports and the Creative Industries Council itself. Using comedy in social prescribing could help us save billions on mental healthcare, and I am working with Lou Jackson of Craic House—that is C-R-A-I-C—on a tech platform to help comedians. Will the Leader of the House dedicate time for a debate on our comedy industry?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case. Of course, comedy is no joke when it comes to the economy. [Interruption.] I try my best, Mr Speaker, but I am obviously not as good as those at Craic House in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She makes a great point, and I am sure that Ministers will have heard her call today that the comedy sector is a vital part of our cultural and creative industries, and we will do everything to support it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for making time this week for the debate on dementia, which was well attended, with a time limit imposed on Back-Bench speeches. However, I think she owes an apology to the proposers of the debate on the Thursday before we rose for recess, when the debate was curtailed at the Government’s response so that they could make a statement, after which you, Mr Speaker, had to adjourn the House for an hour, after individuals who wanted to speak were unable to do so, before the Government finally made a statement.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, next Thursday there will be a statement from the Business and Trade Committee. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has continued the experiment of having Backbench Business debates after Government business, with the Windrush Day debate, which I am sure will be well attended, and indeed the estimates days that have been announced. Applications are now open, and we will consider them at our meeting on 17 June. We will give priority to the Departments that were not chosen for the estimate day debates earlier this year.
In addition, the business in Westminster Hall next week is as follows: on Tuesday there will be the debate on the United States Agency for International Development’s pause on funding and its impact on UK international development; on Thursday there will be a debate on legal recognition of humanist marriages, followed by a debate on long-term conditions; on Tuesday 17 June there will be a debate on hydrogen-powered aviation; and on Thursday 19 June there will be a debate on the role of careers education in improving social mobility, followed by a debate on Down’s syndrome regression disorder.
Over the weekend and earlier this week, we had our first cross-party delegation from India for many years. It included parliamentarians from all religions, and I know that many MPs and Members of the House of Lords had the opportunity to meet them. Two things came out of that delegation loudly and clearly: first, that the uneasy truce that exists between India and Pakistan could at any time be violated if further terrorist actions emanate from Pakistan; and secondly, that India is reaching out for support from the west on security and defence measures, and we must assist it. May we have a statement next week, probably from the Foreign Secretary, on what we in this Parliament will do to support India in its need to quash terrorism?
Lucy Powell
As ever, I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for announcing the forthcoming business and arranging for the estimates day applications to be opened up. I am sorry that he missed our last session before the recess. Perhaps he was not aware that I congratulated him and said that I hoped he had not had much sleep—I know that he had been out celebrating Tottenham winning some silverware for the first time in quite some time. That was a very good excuse not to be here. I was asked at that session about the Backbench Business Committee debate the previous week, and I made it clear that what happened was not of our own making. It was a challenging situation: we were having to deal with a press conference that was being hosted by the President of the United States and, of course, he was not that interested in the goings-on in Parliament that day, but we were keen to make sure that a statement was brought to the House at the earliest opportunity. That is definitely not an experience that any of us wants to repeat, if at all possible.
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the delegation of Indian parliamentarians. I was hoping to meet them myself, but I was unable to do so on this occasion, but I hope to do so in future. He is right that our relationship with India is important, which is why this Government are so pleased that we have agreed an unprecedented trade deal with India. There are also, as he says, security and other issues between India and Pakistan, and this House has been kept updated on those matters and I shall make sure that continues to be the case.
Mr Speaker
To help Members, we will run business questions to around 11.45. We can help each other by moving quickly, so I call Leigh Ingham to provide a good example.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Two amazing young women in my constituency, Liz and Grace, are part of the team from Newport high school for girls who this week competed in the Young Enterprise finals. Liz, Grace and the rest of the team set up a company from scratch, designed and manufactured a unique product and have made more than £2,400 in profits, all while doing their A-levels. As co-chair of the women and enterprise APPG, I am proud to see this home-grown talent. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them, and may we have a debate on supporting the next generation of women to become involved in enterprise?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Liz and Grace on their enterprising endeavours and making such a good profit while also studying for their A-levels. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, who is sitting next to me, will have heard that question. Getting more young women into enterprise and business is obviously very important.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Many constituents in Potters Bar have contacted me with concerns about increases in applications for houses of multiple occupation. Streets such as Strafford Gate are quiet residential roads with semi-detached bungalows. They are really not suitable for being converted into units with five or six bedrooms. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate whether planning rules in respect of houses of multiple occupation are fit for purpose?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about what is happening in Potters Bar. The right hon. Member is right that the proliferation of HMOs can have a devastating effect on communities. Local authorities have some regulations and powers , but they are often not sufficient. That is why we have the Renters’ Rights Bill coming through to strengthen the powers of local authorities in the private rented sector, including in relation to HMOs. I look forward to the right hon. Member supporting the Bill as it progresses.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to pay tribute to Doncaster boxing legend Terri Harper, who is a three-weight world champion and the first British woman to win titles in three weight divisions. She defended and retained her lightweight boxing title last month in Doncaster. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Terri on her incredible success, and will she make time in the Chamber to discuss how we can encourage girls to become the next generation of leaders in women’s sport, just like Terri?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Terri. We want to see more women getting involved in sport, not only competing at the highest level like Terri but taking part, because it is really good for their life, wellbeing, health and education.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituent was due to have her radio teleswitch meter replaced on Thursday after three years of wrangling with her supplier, but it did not happen. We know that the RTS switch-off is happening at the end of June, and at the current rate in Scotland it will take 380 days for all the meters to be replaced. Can we get a statement from the Government on an issue that is fast becoming a crisis?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. It has been raised with me on a number of occasions by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) as well. No one should be left without a signal, and that is what should be happening, but I will ensure that the hon. Lady and other Members are kept updated, because this is an urgent matter.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I was in the House during business questions on 9 January when my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), Chair of the Defence Committee, referred to the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984, ordered by the then Indian Government. Documents revealed in 2014 showed that the Thatcher Government had helped their Indian counterpart by providing advice for Operation Blue Star. Since 2014 there have been many calls to establish the extent of the British Government’s involvement, and many assurances have been given. Will the Leader of the House give a statement to the House announcing an independent, judge-led public inquiry to, in her own words, get to the bottom of what happened?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. As he says, it was raised with me a few months ago, and I made it clear on that occasion what I hoped would happen. I understand the concerns of Members across the House and of members of the Sikh community, many of whom he represents. When I was asked about this issue previously, I did follow up, and I am sorry to say that I am still waiting. When I do hear from the Foreign Office, I will ensure that my hon. Friend and other Members are made fully aware and that the House is updated.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Landywood voluntary help centre in Great Wyrley, which is completely staffed by volunteers, has been supporting people of all ages for 50 years. May we have a debate in Government time to thank such organisations for the work they do, in all our constituencies across the country, to support the most vulnerable?
Lucy Powell
I join the right hon. Member in thanking the volunteers at that help centre and all the other volunteers in all our constituencies. Voluntary work is a common theme of business questions week after week, and I am sure that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), will have heard that we would all like the opportunity to pay tribute to and thank all volunteers for the tremendous work they do in our constituencies.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is almost 30 years since the iconic replica of Sir Francis Drake’s Golden Hinde arrived at the historic St Mary Overie dock on the Thames in Southwark. Will the Leader of the House provide time to debate what Government at every level can do to ensure that we continue celebrating our maritime history and educating future generations through amazing interactive experiences like those that the Golden Hinde provides to children from my constituency in Southwark and across the globe?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I am sure we are all familiar with the Golden Hinde from walking along the south bank. Restoring our heritage assets is really important to this Government, and we announced additional funding to the heritage at risk programme in February. I hope that my hon. Friend and Southwark council can work together to do their bit to restore and bring back to life that great asset.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Tackling child poverty is incredibly important. On Monday, the Leader of the House told me:
“I will ensure that she and the House are updated on the timings for the child poverty taskforce”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 33.]
I would appreciate an update on the timings. When will we know when the announcements will be made?
Lucy Powell
The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), will shortly give a statement to the House about progress with free school meals. As part of that statement, I am assured that he will let the House know where we are with the timings of the taskforce and when we can expect the report.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have been deeply distressed by the story of Beth Martin, a mum of two from my constituency who tragically died in unclear circumstances on holiday in Turkey last month. My thoughts and sympathies go out to her husband Luke and her two children, and indeed to all who love her. I thank the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for his sensitive and swift work. Will the Leader of the House please make time for him to update me on his work internationally regarding this devastating death?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about that distressing case. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to Beth’s husband Luke and her two young children at this awful time. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has been working with her. I will ensure that that continues and that she is kept constantly updated.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for the Government’s assurance that the Chagos islands treaty will be debated in the House. May I draw her attention to the prayer of early-day motion 1398, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others?
[That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified.]
Compliant with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, a debate is required within 21 sitting days of laying a treaty before the House. The treaty was laid on 22 May. Will the Government give an assurance that the motion will be debated in Government time before the expiry of those 21 days so that the House gets a proper opportunity to decide whether the treaty should be ratified?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. As he knows, the agreement was laid before both Houses on 22 May, and under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act both Houses have 21 sitting days—running to 3 July—to scrutinise and lay, as he said, anything they want to on that. We will ensure that the full CRaG process is followed at all times. He will be aware that, in addition, we will introduce legislation to implement the agreement, and there will be ample time for the House to consider the Bill to ratify the treaty.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I am delighted to have championed additional funding of more than £10 million for the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust and over £1 million for Walsall Manor hospital for essential work and upgrades. Let us contrast that to the Tories, who oversaw a backlog of maintenance and crumbling hospitals. Will the Leader of the House meet me to continue championing safe, modern, future-fit facilities for patients and hard-working staff in Wolverhampton North East?
Lucy Powell
I am really pleased that the Government have ensured that the funding is there to provide the vital upgrades needed for the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust. My hon. Friend is right that we inherited a hospital capital programme that was a work of fiction; there was not a penny allocated to many of the promises that had been made. We have now set out a clear timetable with allocated funding so that her hospital and many others can get the improvements they desperately need.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Leader of the House will be well aware that the global ocean treaty has still not had its passage through the House. With the first ever ocean conference of the parties coming up quickly, next year, will she confirm when the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement will be brought forward for ratification?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. Along with other parliamentarians, I was pleased, but also moved, to watch the “Ocean with David Attenborough” documentary with David Attenborough in the House of Lords. I can assure her that I and this Government were already resolved to ensure that that treaty was ratified and the Bill brought forward. Having watched the documentary, I will ensure that we do that in a timely fashion.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
This week, my office has had to respond to several concerning incidents of misinformation regarding police investigations in my constituency. In one case, a national newspaper sought to sensationalise a very serious incident in which an officer was investigated for gross misconduct. In another, a false claim that a mugging was carried out by an asylum seeker, when in fact it was a British national known to police, was spread on social media. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is irresponsible to cast judgment on such serious issues without full knowledge of the facts, and will she consider granting parliamentary time for a debate on how we can tackle misinformation in our communities and ensure police can carry out their duties without such interference?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the cases that my hon. Friend describes. She is right that the quick spreading of misinformation and disinformation on social media and elsewhere in such cases can be of great concern in relation to safety on our streets and protection of our public servants and others. Indeed, it can cause real problems, as we saw last summer. We are taking action in that regard. The Online Safety Act 2023 was not as strong in this area as it could have been, but we will work to strengthen the laws where necessary.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on the three flagrant breaches of the ministerial code committed by the Defence Secretary on Monday? For the record, the Opposition received their copy of the strategic defence review mid-afternoon, the media received it at 10.30 am, and defence companies received it at 8 o’clock in the morning. Within minutes, there were share price spikes in a number of defence stocks.
Section 8.11 of the “Ministerial Code” clearly states:
“where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.”
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I understand he wants clarification, but a business question from a Front-Bench spokesperson on his own subject is not normally accepted.
Lucy Powell
Thank you for that, Mr Speaker, but I am happy to address some of the issues in that question, albeit from the right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Back Benches.
I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the process that was followed by the Ministry of Defence, which included making available in advance security briefings for Opposition Members and others, as well as a reading room, was exactly the same process that was followed in previous SDRs. [Interruption.] He may want to look at that. I understand that his Front-Bench boss, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was offered that briefing and to go into the reading room—a briefing that he declined to take up. That is what was followed, as on every other occasion. That is why I said earlier that the Defence Secretary, who takes his commitments to this House incredibly seriously, wants to ensure that, for this and all future Governments, there is a process to agree so that on future occasions everybody can be clear about the expectations of timings and how things can be followed.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Harry, a constituent of mine, is suffering from cancer. He has just finished gruelling chemotherapy and he now needs radiotherapy. He has been offered radiotherapy 170 miles away from where he lives. He has been told that he needs to pay for his transport and the accommodation for himself and his family during the treatment that has been offered. That is at the same time as the Rutherford centre, a state-of-the-art cancer treatment centre that is a stone’s throw away from where Harry lives, has been closed for a number of years. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how the NHS and the Government can come together to ensure that that fantastic facility can be used in the best interests of people in the region?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about what is happening to Harry, and I am sure we all want to wish him well in the treatment he needs to get. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that although state-of-the-art cancer treatments are available, they are not as widely available as they should be, and we have a lot further to go in ensuring that people are quickly treated near where they live. We will publish a dedicated national cancer plan this year, and I will ensure that the House is updated on that. We have already relaunched the children and young people cancer taskforce. I will absolutely look at the case he raises and see what further can be done.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
My constituent Katie from Tring, during her exemption period for access to free NHS dental care as a new mother, looked at every dental surgery for 50 miles and was unable to get an appointment. Not only do we need to deal with the dental crisis, but Katie is calling for an extension to that exemption period. Please can we have a debate in the House on the growing crisis in dental care access?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is something that we and all our constituents can relate to. Access to NHS dentistry falls far short of what any of us would want it to be. The previous Conservative Government left a huge number of NHS dentistry deserts around the country, and it sounds like her constituent is living in one of them. We are taking this seriously. We are committed to rolling out 700,000 more NHS dental appointments, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady and everybody else is kept updated.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Paragraph 7.36 of “Erskine May” states the process for setting out the ratification of international treaties. The Government’s treaty tracker says the global oceans treaty that the Leader of the House referred to earlier has not been ratified, and yet the BBNJ treaty—the global oceans treaty—was laid before this House on 16 October 2023. It appears the Government are misleading themselves in believing that they have to introduce legislation implementing the treaty before they can ratify it. Would she meet me to discuss the conundrum that appears to be stopping us going to the UN oceans conference next week and laying the instrument of ratification so that the treaty can come into force?
Lucy Powell
We are absolutely committed to ratifying that treaty and agreement. The Environment Secretary is at the summit this weekend to discuss the leading role that this country is taking to protect our oceans for generations to come. We will introduce a Bill to ratify that treaty and will do so in time for when we need to do so next year. I assure my hon. Friend that the House will be updated shortly on the matter.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Yarm is being battered by Stockton’s Labour council’s rush to build far too many houses far too fast in all the wrong places. It is placing unbearable pressure on our roads, schools and GP surgery. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on how we tackle such irresponsible over- development?
Lucy Powell
We make no apology for wanting to build more homes—more affordable homes, more social homes—for people to live in, which, frankly, the hon. Member’s Government failed to do in all their time in office. But that is not to say that it is a developer free-for-all. Communities should have a say in where those homes, and what type of homes, are built, but we need to go further and faster to ensure that the affordable homes that everybody needs to live in are built.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am regularly contacted by park home residents in my constituency, of which there are more than 500, about the unique challenges they face. Residents of Radcliffe Park and Tollerton Park, in particular, raise issues such as energy costs, their relationship with site owners and, most importantly, the 10% sales commission that traps residents in their homes. Does the Leader of the House agree that park homes should be an area of focus for this Government, and will she find time for Members to discuss this formally?
Lucy Powell
Park homes, and particularly the site owners’ commission on sales, are regularly raised with me at business questions. I am sure a debate would be very popular were my hon. Friend to apply for one. This Government will set out actions on this in due course, and I encourage him to speak to the relevant Minister, which I am happy to facilitate.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
This week the Government announced an enormous investment in transport projects in metropolitan areas, but nothing for rural areas. Given that almost a fifth of the population live in rural and coastal areas, and that many of them, like North Shropshire, have very poor public transport, can we have a debate in Government time to consider how we might invest in really good public transport projects, such as the Oswestry to Gobowen railway line, to unleash growth in rural areas?
Lucy Powell
I reassure the hon. Lady that the big announcement on the £15 billion transport infrastructure projects for metro mayoral areas was just a start, and that there is more to come. I am sure she will recognise that this Government are absolutely committed to rural transport. That is why we have the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill going through Parliament, and it is why we have capped bus fares at £3, which is particularly relevant to rural communities where fares have gone through the roof in recent years. I can assure the hon. Lady that there is more to come.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I welcome this Government’s progress on reducing NHS waiting lists in physical health, but there are currently 1.6 million people on mental health waiting lists. People are eight times more likely to have to wait 18 months for treatment if their condition is mental rather than physical. Research by the charity Rethink Mental Illness shows that long waiting lists can lead to deterioration of symptoms, suicide attempts and people dropping out of the workforce. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on mental health waiting times so that we can address this crisis in our NHS?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He is right that mental health services are in crisis and, frankly, are just not fit for purpose. That is what we inherited, which is why we are taking immediate steps to improve early intervention and prevention and to shift care into communities. We are recruiting 8,500 mental health workers, and we are currently taking the Mental Health Bill through Parliament to boost mental health in this country.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Greenergy operates a biodiesel facility at Immingham in my constituency, but it has had to go into a cold shutdown and review the future of its operations. This is in part due to subsidised imports from the US and the need to review the renewable transport fuel obligation, which affects not just the Immingham plant but businesses up and down the country. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate or an urgent statement on the renewable transport fuel obligation?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the incident in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the impact that the renewable transport fuel obligation is having on the renewable sector there. We have Energy Security and Net Zero questions coming up next week, and he may want to raise this.
I will say that this situation is why this Government are working so hard to ensure that we have trade deals with America, and we secured one ahead of many other countries. It is also why we are absolutely committed to our clean energy mission, which is driving us forward.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
I am working with local business and political leaders across Cumbria to make the case for much-needed investment in upgrading the Cumbria coast, or energy coast, rail line. This line is essential for two national endeavours: the Barrow shipyard and the nuclear decommissioning work at Sellafield. We need to improve both freight and passenger capacity on the line, so will the Leader of the House assist me in securing a meeting with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to help make this case?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a strong case for how important nuclear energy is to his constituency and the whole country, and linking up the assets that exist in Barrow and Cumbria is vital to our clean energy mission. I will assist him in facilitating a meeting, because we need to join up these issues and ensure that transport and connectivity are a key part of our industrial strategy and clean energy mission.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The right of an elected representative to challenge the Executive is a core tenet of our democracy and something we are fortunate to have defended here by Mr Speaker. However, on Tuesday night in Fermanagh and Omagh district council, the Sinn Féin group moved a motion to silence an Ulster Unionist councillor—one of my party colleagues, Mark Ovens—for questioning one of their decisions. He was not just gagged; he was silenced for the entirety of that meeting. Does the Leader of the House agree that such an action was undemocratic and that, despite Labour’s majority and how tempting it may be, she would never contemplate such an action in this place nor think it was appropriate in a democratically elected Chamber?
Lucy Powell
I do not know about the case the hon. Member refers to, but I can assure him that, much as I might like to silence some of my colleagues in this place, I know that my job as Leader of the House and everyone’s job in this House is to ensure that every single Member has the opportunity to make their voice heard loud and clear. We will be taking steps to ensure that in local government, too, we have high standards and high levels of accountability and transparency, and that is something this Government uphold as well.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Biosecurity is national security, and farmers in South Norfolk are on the frontline in that battle, whether they are in Morningthorpe or Norton Subcourse. We saw at first hand the effects of bluetongue and avian influenza. This week’s report from the National Audit Office on animal diseases is a wake-up call for the whole House. Can we have a statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what action the Minister will take in response to those concerns?
Lucy Powell
I know that my hon. Friend has been pressing this issue strongly. We will protect against animal diseases and ensure that the livelihoods of our farmers and rural communities are protected. I know that DEFRA is working with the NAO on a plan for its recommendations, and I will ensure that he and the rest of the House are updated.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Mobile phone signal across Bromsgrove and the villages is wholly inadequate. It regularly drops out, and that is if we are lucky enough to get a signal. Things are getting worse, particularly following the rolling switch-off of 3G signals across the country. A recent real-world study in Worcestershire demonstrated that signal is actually 1,000 times worse than operators claim it to be. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is unacceptable and that my constituents deserve better? Will she support my efforts to secure a debate on the Floor of the House and a meeting with the Minister to discuss improvements?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member is right to raise the issue of poor mobile phone signal, and I am sorry to hear that it seems to be so bad in his constituency in Worcestershire. He is right: these days, this is the fourth utility. Many of our constituents cannot conduct their everyday lives or access services, banking, benefits or pensions without a good mobile phone signal and data. I will happily help him secure a response from the Minister and a meeting.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Since being elected last year, my postbag has been inundated with correspondence from social housing residents who struggle to get repairs done by their landlord, in some cases waiting for months with issues such as rat infestations, missing windows and holes in the ceiling. It is absolutely unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on social housing repairs and how we hold social landlords to account for the accommodation they provide?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. She is right that social housing landlords do have legal duties to carry out high-standard repairs and maintenance but, all too often, tenants do not have the recourse they need to hold their housing providers to account. We are strengthening that in the Renters’ Rights Bill, which is reaching its closing stages in the House of Lords, but we have to ensure that tenants, whether in the social or private sector, have that recourse and ability to hold their landlords to account.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
No one who has watched David Attenborough’s film “Ocean”, to which the Leader of the House has already referred, will fail to have been moved and terrified by the senseless destruction of our oceans, the lifeblood of our planet. In order to save our sick oceans, we need to safeguard about 30% of them; only about 3% are currently marine protected. Next week, the UN will hold an ocean conference in Nice. Will she ensure that we receive a statement from the Government on the outcome of the conference and what the Government will do to protect our very sick oceans?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member highlights just a few of the very moving and powerful impacts of that documentary, which I am sure many people have watched. It is hard to not be moved by the scale of the challenge, and the destruction in recent years, but also by the hope in that documentary that the oceans can quickly recover if we are all willing to take the steps necessary to protect it. That is why I am delighted that the Environment Secretary is going to the UN summit later this week, and it is why the Government are committed to ratifying the ocean treaty in good time.
Mr Speaker
Let us see if we can speed things up and get everybody in. If not, people will miss out.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
My constituent, who has lived here for 10 years and is from Ukraine, was joined by her parents, who were fleeing the conflict. They set up a bank account when they arrived here and tried to transfer some of their money. The bank immediately shut down their bank account, which also resulted in my constituent’s bank account being shut down. There must be a number of people in this situation; it is no way to treat people who are fleeing conflict. Can we have a statement from the banking Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), so that we can find out exactly what is going on here, and force the banks to treat people with a bit more respect?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend identifies. I think the banking Minister will shortly be in the House for a debate this afternoon, but I will ensure that he gets a full update.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House bring forward a specific debate that focuses on the 80th anniversary of VJ Day and the end of the war in the far east, so that the horrific conditions in which those, for example, in the King’s Own Scottish Borderers had to fight and the conditions that people faced as prisoners of war can be properly recognised? We had a debate on the 80th anniversary of VE Day, but—as in 1945—the end of the war in Europe overshadowed those events in the far east.
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the particular lessons that we should learn from the end of the war in the far east, and the importance of recognising VJ Day in its own right. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is in his place; I will speak to him, and look myself at whether we can allocate some time to do just as the right hon. Member asks.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Nicky Wright, who was last week named consultant of the year in the Women in Construction and Engineering Awards. Nicky’s career started with work in Iraq and Angola, and now she is part of the leadership team delivering the fantastic transformation of Gatwick airport. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Nicky’s achievements, and help me to make sure that great voices like Nicky’s are featured in the Government’s work on construction, skills and growth in the future?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Nicky Wright on what sounds like a tremendous career that we should applaud. He is right that getting more young women and girls attracted to science, technology, engineering and maths is critical, and I hope that Nicky and others will play a role in that.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
My constituent Olivia is fighting for Archie’s law—new legislation to improve the quality of care for critically ill infants and children—after tragically losing her baby boy Archie. I have raised the matter with the Secretary of State, but the responses so far have failed to specifically address Archie’s law, and I have waited for the latest since February. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter with the Health Secretary, and ensure that Archie’s law gets a fair hearing?
Lucy Powell
I will raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I am sorry that I do not know more detail about the proposal, but there are other devices, such as the presentation of Bills and ten-minute rule Bills, and other opportunities that the hon. Member might wish to use to raise such a new law on the Floor of the House.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Kirstie Bavington is a two-time European female welterweight boxing champion from my constituency, yet even with those achievements she is still working as a PE teacher while pursuing her dream of making boxing a full-time career. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in Government time on increasing funding for female athletes, so that champions like Kirstie can pursue sport as a full-time career and achieve true parity in opportunity and support?
Lucy Powell
Women’s sport has been raised a few times this morning. It will always make a popular topic for a debate, but I join my hon. Friend in congratulating her constituent and encouraging others.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I know that you, Mr Speaker, are an animal lover, like me and my Basildon and Billericay constituents, although sadly some people are not. After some horrific cases, will the Leader of the House push the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to get on with its consultation on licensing animal welfare centres? If not, will she allow a debate in Government time on this issue on the Floor of the House?
Lucy Powell
Last night, I attended Jo Coburn’s “Daily Politics” leaving do, and the spats that the right hon. Gentleman and I had on her show on a few occasions were featured in her leaving video. I think I probably came out better than him, but we will leave that for another day!
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important matter of animal welfare, to which this Government are committed. I will ensure that DEFRA continues to keep the House updated on the very many areas where we are making progress in this regard.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Next week, we have the second day of debate on Report for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is important to many of my Exeter constituents. Does the Leader of the House agree with me and with Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society that consideration of the Bill should continue to be thorough and with significant time allocated to the process?
Lucy Powell
We will be debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill further next Friday, and probably soon thereafter. We all have different views about the issue itself, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the process has been incredibly thorough—in part thanks to your support, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that there is ample time for debate on the Floor of the House. We had a full day of debate on Second Reading, there were over 90 hours of debate in Committee and there has already been one day of debate on remaining stages, and there are likely to be a further two. That means more time will probably have been given to the Bill than to most substantial pieces of Government legislation.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent Anthony’s husband’s emergency and urgent care was compromised because hospital staff could not access his medical records, even though he had been treated by specialists in the same hospital. Can we have a debate on ensuring that patient records can be accessed swiftly by clinicians across hospital trusts within regions, so that patients are not endangered by the inability of software systems to communicate within the NHS?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. I am sure that many people would be surprised to realise that data sharing does not happen in the way that we all imagine it does between different parts of the NHS. We are committed to ensuring that can happen in order to unlock much improved services, and to provide us with a great deal of data and information to help us continue to improve those services.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Tomorrow marks the start of Pride weekend in Blackpool—a town that has always been a little louder and prouder than most. Blackpool has long been a sanctuary for the LGBTQ+ community and a place where queer joy has always found a home. I am looking forward to marching in the parade on Saturday and joining locals at the Lord Street party on Sunday. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Blackpool Pride and sending everyone our best wishes for a joyful weekend?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in recognising that Blackpool is louder and prouder when it comes to Pride and celebrating our LGBT community. I hope he has a fantastic day there; I have seen him at Manchester Pride many times before.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to draw to attention to the increasing vulnerability of religious minorities in Syria, particularly the Alawite community. Recent reports have highlighted renewed sectarian violence, placing Alawites at heightened risk amid broader instability and government failures to foster inclusivity. In addition, Syria’s 2025 interim constitution enshrined Islamic jurisprudence as the primary source of law, effectively restricting legal protections for religious minorities. Will the Leader of the House contact the Foreign Secretary to ask what assessment the Foreign Office has made of those development and what representations he has made to press international partners?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for once again raising important issues of freedom of religion or belief—in this case, regarding the Alawite community in Syria. I will absolutely ensure that he gets a full response.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
In Kirkby, 160 households in Willow Rise and Beech Rise face eviction because their tower block has been condemned. The private owners have failed to carry out essential fire safety work, and residents would already have been forced out if it were not for Knowsley council temporarily funding a waking watch. We need urgent Government support. Will the Leader of the House pass on my thanks to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), for meeting me and use her good offices to press the urgency of a support package to help to rehome my constituents?
Lucy Powell
That is a shocking case in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I know has rightly attracted a great deal of attention. I congratulate her on continuing to press the matter. This Government expect landlords and freeholders to cover the costs of decanting residents, including providing suitable alternative accommodation, and the loss of income that may come from that. I will absolutely ensure that the Minister continues to work with my hon. Friend to make sure that happens in this case.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My constituent Caitlyn was coerced into signing a joint lease with her abuser just four days before he was arrested on charges relating to domestic violence. He was convicted, but she is still trapped in the lease for a property that she has never lived in and she is liable for rent that he refuses to pay. The estate agents tell us that they have a legal responsibility to chase rent arrears. Survivors in Caitlyn’s position are unable to fully move on from their abuse, even after justice has been done in the courts. Will the Leader of the House help me to arrange a meeting with the Minister for Safeguarding to discuss a legislative solution to this problem and better support for survivors of domestic violence?
Lucy Powell
I am sure we all recognise these cases from our own constituencies. Such circumstances are absolutely shocking. I assure my hon. Friend that our Renters’ Rights Bill, which has nearly reached its concluding stages in the House of Lords, will remove fixed-term assured tenancies and prevent anyone in the future from being locked into exactly the situation that he describes. I will ensure that a Minister meets with him to discuss that.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), let me say that this week marks a tragic week: the 41st anniversary of the raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar. Some 41 years later, questions about British involvement in the desecration of the holiest Sikh site in Amritsar remain unanswered. Labour promised in its 2017 and 2019 manifestos to hold an inquiry, and the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister pledged to do so before the last election. Will the Leader of the House allow time for an update from the Foreign Secretary on the progress of implementing that inquiry and ensure that promises made in opposition are fulfilled in government?
Lucy Powell
I really do understand how important it is for the Sikh community to see progress on this issue —that is the second time that it has been raised with me this morning. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of the concerns being raised again on the Floor of the House and that the update I previously asked for is made available to Members and this House.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Penrith and Solway, like constituencies across the country, is littered with empty listed buildings. Many are rotting, with neglectful owners who are often not even required to pay rates. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to discuss how we stop this disgraceful trashing of our heritage?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises the really important issue of empty listed buildings and how they could be brought back into use and made better use of. I will absolutely ensure that a Minister gives him a full reply.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras bras, Mr Speaker. New data from the Office for National Statistics on sickness absence rates was published yesterday. As a Cornish MP, I am particularly concerned that the south-west has the highest sickness absence across the whole of the UK. Sickness absence follows poverty, and Cornwall’s poverty figures have been masked by wealthier pensioners moving there, meaning less support per capita from central Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that remote coastal areas, like Cornwall, need fairer funding settlements than those that we have had in recent years to lift people out of sickness and get them back to work?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely agree that we have to get people out of sickness and back into work. That is why this Government are bringing forward reforms to the universal credit health element to ensure that people are not consigned to sickness for a long period, but encouraged back to work.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Rochdale’s award-winning trading standards team has led the country in exposing the spread of ghost car number plates, which allow child sex offenders, speeding motorists and drug dealers to avoid police detection cameras. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Darren Hughen and Dennis Chalmers, who visited Parliament this week, and will she support my campaign and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) to outlaw ghost car number plates?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), my Parliamentary Private Secretary, is not in her place today, but I know she has been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and others on the campaign to get rid of ghost plates. Their campaigning has been fantastic at highlighting this issue and the problems it causes, and I know that Transport Ministers are looking at it.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Tough Enough To Care is a men’s mental health charity that works to remove the toxic stigma around mental health. I had the privilege of attending one of its meetings in Wirksworth, where I witnessed the incredible work that that charity is doing to ensure more men get the support they need. Will the Leader of the House join me in acknowledging the great work being done by Tough Enough To Care, and acknowledge the important role that men’s mental health charities play in ensuring that fewer men take their own lives?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who work with Tough Enough To Care, and thank him for highlighting the important work that it does. It is still absolutely shocking that the biggest cause of death for men under the age of 50 is suicide, and the work of Tough Enough To Care and others is vital in addressing that.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on a more robust range of censure and sanction options for serious breaches of the local government members’ code of conduct, including suspension and removal of councillors? I know of recent incidents in which, despite egregious behaviour by councillors elected unopposed, those councillors remain in post, regardless of the wishes of their community and their council.
Lucy Powell
We want to see high standards in public life, including in local government and among councillors. We are looking at how we can take steps and bring forward legislation to continue to raise standards in local government.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I recently visited the fantastic repair café in Sawbridgeworth, which renews our everyday products and stops them going into landfill. As we mark Volunteers’ Week, will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the volunteers at that repair café and all the volunteers across Hertford and Stortford for their hard work?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those volunteers for their really hard work.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
On 12 April, a man required hospital treatment after being attacked by at least five men, who had earlier made homophobic remarks outside the Old Bridge hotel in Holmfirth in my constituency. In response, local residents have united to organise Holmfirth’s first ever Pride, which will take place this Saturday. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing attendees at Pride a great time, but can we also have a debate in Government time on what further action we can take to tackle hate crime?
Lucy Powell
This Government stand absolutely against homophobic hate crimes of that kind. My hon. Friend might want to take up these issues when we consider the Crime and Policing Bill, not next week but the week after. I wish all those taking part in Holmfirth’s first Pride the best of luck.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Redditch United football club is showcasing the importance of the UK’s leading gambling harm charity, Gordon Moody, by displaying its logo on next year’s shirts. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising Redditch United and Gordon Moody for this innovative collaboration, which demonstrates how local sport can be a force for good in tackling addiction?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Gordon Moody and Redditch United football club for all the work they are doing to support people.
Free School Meals
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on free school meals for children.
This is a Government who put children first—they are at the centre of the change that we want to see, because what we do for our children, we do for our country. If we want to break the unfair link between background and success, deliver opportunity to every home and shape a fairer society, that has to start with our children. It has to start with the fundamentals: making sure that every family has a stable, loving home where no child lacks food or warmth. That simple dignity should be the uncontroversial birthright of every child as they grow up in a civilised society, but after 14 long years, that dignity was not universal, nor that birthright uncontroversial.
When this Government won the trust of the British people, which Conservative Members forfeited last July, the legacy of the Conservatives’ shameful record in power was a record number of children growing up in poverty. Some 4.5 million children were robbed of opportunity and hope, of life chances and of possibilities. Child poverty is a scar on our society. It is a mark of the failure of Conservative Members to grow the economy, to spread success to working people and to deliver for the next generation the ordinary hope that tomorrow will be better than today.
The last Government did not see the growing number of families in deep poverty as a failure to be addressed, but let me be clear that the growing number of children on free school meals under the last Government was an index of failure, not a story of success. This Government are determined to turn the picture around, tackling child poverty and spreading growth and opportunity to every family in every part of our country. That is why today I am announcing the biggest expansion of free school meal eligibility in England in a generation, because we can and must end the scourge of child poverty.
Today, we are setting out that we will give every child whose family is in receipt of universal credit the entitlement to free school meals. That means not simply meals in mouths but, crucially, money back in the pockets of parents and families on an unprecedented scale. This is a historic change for children and for families, with 100,000 children lifted out of poverty. That is the mark of a Government who are serious about backing parents and tackling child poverty, the mark of a Government with a plan for change and the mark of a Government with the ideas, investment and determination to see it through.
On that note, this Government’s child poverty taskforce, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education co-chairs with the Work and Pensions Secretary, is forging ahead. We have listened to parents, to charities and to people with lived experience, and now we are acting, bringing the change that children and families deserve. In the months and years to come, that change will be shaped by the child poverty strategy, which we will publish later this year.
This is an intervention that backs parents as well as children. Our free school meals expansion will put up to £495 back in parents’ pockets every year. For them, that means more freedom in how they support their families, more choice in how they care for their children and more opportunities to get on and live a good life. Our expansion of free school meals is not just about the here and now; it is an investment in our children’s futures. It sets them free from the worries and strains of growing up in poverty, leaving them free to learn and play and to do their very best in school. Today’s announcement is not only anti-poverty, but pro-learning. I know that Members across the House will agree with me when I say that those two causes shine brightest when they shine together. That is what the evidence tells us.
These meals need to be healthy. School food standards have not been revised since 2014, but this Government are acting quickly to put that right. That is why I am pleased to announce today that we are working with experts from across the sector to revise those standards. We are supporting schools with the latest nutritional guidance, because the benefits for children of getting a decent, healthy meal at school are huge, with their attendance higher, their focus sharper, their behaviour better, their grades stronger and their futures brighter. That chance to succeed should be open to all. That is the sort of society I want to live in and that this Government want to build, but the kind of change that our children need is not the work of a single day or a single policy, even one as important as this. That is why today’s announcement is part of our wider approach and moral mission with the child poverty strategy, the opportunity mission and this Government’s plan for change.
We have already begun rolling out school-based nurseries and 30 hours of Government-funded childcare, saving parents up to £7,500 a year. Children are already eating, playing and learning together as our free breakfast clubs reach 750 early adopter schools, saving parents another £450 a year. We are cutting the cost of school uniforms for 4.2 million children, saving some parents £50 in their back-to-school shop. On top of that, we are recruiting more teachers, driving high and rising standards in our schools, reforming children’s social care, boosting the early years pupil premium and so much more.
Growing up in Fratton, I saw at first hand the devastating impact that poverty can have on children in Portsmouth. Friends came to school hungry and not ready to learn. That is why I am proud to stand here today as we offer a helping hand to ensure that every child, whatever their background and wherever they come from, achieves and thrives.
We are delivering the change that parents need and that children deserve—the change that will break the unfair link between background and success once and for all. That means doing everything in our power to end child poverty. Today, we say enough is enough. Today, we begin to turn the tide. Today, the fightback that began in July last year kicks up a gear. We are acting to secure a brighter future for our children and for our country too. I commend this statement to the House.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The truth is that the families benefiting from today’s announcement are the same ones who are paying for it, because the same group of people are hit hardest by Labour’s national insurance increase. Labour promised not to increase national insurance, but it broke that promise, and someone earning just £13,000 a year will now take home £500 less as a result of the tax increase. Someone on just £9,000 a year—the exact sort of person who is supposed to benefit from this policy—will lose 5% of their income.
The Government want to talk about the impact of the money they are giving today on poverty, but they do not want to talk about the impact of the much larger sum of money they are taking away. Disgracefully, they have not done any distributional analysis of the £25 billion that they are taking away, which is particularly targeted at low-income households. Will the Minister say how many households that will push into poverty? Will he finally admit what the figure is?
While free school meals are obviously welcome, the things that are being cut to pay for them are much less welcome. For example, the Government broke their promise to fully fund the national insurance increase for schools, and some have been short-changed by 35%. They also broke their promise to fully fund the pay award. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that leaves a £400 million funding hole for our schools. Under the last Government, although there was an increase in achievement across the board, the biggest increase was in the lower half of the income distribution. That is much harder to achieve when the Government have taken £400 million out of our schools.
What else is being done to balance the costs? We already know that the Government have cut support for maths, science, physics, Latin, computing and cadets in schools, and got rid of the successful behaviour hubs. We know that nurseries, which the Minister talked about, are saying they are on the brink because of the national insurance increase. In fact, the Early Years Alliance says the situation is “catastrophic”. We know that the Department for Education recently announced a real-terms cut of 10% to university teaching grants, and it has abolished 90% of higher apprenticeships—funnily enough, they announced that during the recess. Now the education press are saying that the next cost-saving measure to pay for announcements like this will be to abolish education, health and care plans for everything other than special schools. Will the Minister rule that out today? If he does not rule it out, the whole House will hear, and we will know exactly what is going to happen next.
Turning to the numbers, what is the real net effect of all this? Transitional protections were established in 2018 to ensure that pupils who gained FSM would not lose them while universal credit was being rolled out. That has roughly doubled the proportion of pupils who are eligible from 13.6% to 25.7%. However, the Department for Education has announced that those protections will now end in September 2026, when the new policy comes in. By how much will the end of those transitional protections reduce the number of children who are eligible for FSM? Am I right in thinking that it is by 1.2 million? Will the Minister agree—he is looking away—to finally publish a figure? How many children who have been on transitional protection will lose their free school meals when they change phase of education? Will the Minister finally admit to the figure?
There is another sting in the tail today, because school budgets are going to be hit—that is how this policy is being paid for. That is because FSM is the gateway to pupil premium funding. The pupil premium is a great achievement of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, and it is worth £1,480 per pupil in primary schools and a bit over £1,000 in secondary schools. As a result of today’s decision, schools are going to lose that funding. With 1.2 million pupils on transitional protection, bringing with them about £1,200 each, schools are going to lose the £1.5 billion currently going to them in pupil premium funding.
Will that funding be replaced by this announcement? No, because today the Government have for the first time broken the link between FSM eligibility and pupil premium funding. On one side of the ledger, £1.5 billion has been lost, and on the other side of the ledger, schools are not getting it back. I had wondered where all the money was coming from, and now of course we know. I ask the Minister to spit it out: how much will this decision cost schools, and how much is it saving the DFE?
On a similar point, will the Minister confirm that the Government will apply the same approach to holiday activities and food, which would also not trigger an increase in that funding? Is the same also true of home-school transport, and how is this all being paid for? I think we need a little more detail.
Opposition Members have become rather cautious about positive-sounding announcements from this Government. For example, the other day Ministers were here to announce that they would continue the adoption and special guardianship support fund, but it must just have slipped their mind to mention that it was being cut by 40%. That is why we like to know the detail when we get positive announcements.
I will end by asking some questions about the facts. Will the Minister agree to publish information on how many children are currently on transitional protection and how much the end of that protection will reduce entitlement to free school meals? Will he agree to publish how much pupil premium funding schools will lose overall as a result of breaking the link between FSM and the pupil premium? Just to ask again, so that the whole House hears the answer, will he rule out abolishing EHCPs outside special schools—yes or no?
Stephen Morgan
I cannot believe that I did not hear the Opposition spokesperson welcome our announcement. It is a shame that when the Conservatives were in government tackling child poverty was not considered a priority. I feel a little sorry for the spokesperson, who claims to care about education, given that his only policy is to give private schools a tax break. Indeed, on the Conservatives’ watch, child poverty grew to record highs and they wore the increasing numbers in child poverty as a badge of honour. Frankly, that is shameful.
This increase in free school meals is fully funded, and that is possible thanks to the difficult decisions that this Government and the Chancellor have had to take to get the economy growing and put the public finances back on a stable footing. I am excited to hear the Chancellor set out more details next week. That is despite the mess we inherited from the Conservatives. Why has the spokesperson not taken the opportunity today to say sorry for his Government’s shameful record on child poverty? He has nothing to say on education for our country. Unlike them, we will not sit by and watch more children fall into poverty. Unlike them, we are not offering a tax break for private schools. We are delivering positive change for our country. We are giving children back the opportunity to achieve and thrive. With this announcement, we are ensuring that every child, no matter what their background, gets the best start in life. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the expansion of the free school meals entitlement. It is an evidence-based approach for which many of us have campaigned for a long time. It will help to close the disadvantage gap in our schools, tackling child poverty, benefiting children’s health and supporting children to learn.
I hope the Government will agree that every child who is eligible for this expanded entitlement should be able to receive that entitlement. Whether or not children get a free school meal to which they are entitled should not depend on somebody else making an application for them through a complicated process. The Government know which families are in receipt of universal credit, so is the Minister considering auto-enrolment for this expanded entitlement? That would be easier to achieve than auto-enrolment under the previous entitlement, and every child really should be able to benefit.
Can I seek the Minister’s assurance that this very positive announcement is not an indication that other measures to reduce child poverty, such as scrapping the two-child cap, have been taken off the table?
Finally, as a London MP and a former Southwark councillor who was very proud to be part of a council that introduced universal free school meals in 2010—we have seen the benefit of that policy, and I am proud we have a Mayor who is funding universal free school meals for all primary schoolchildren in London—can I ask for confirmation that London will also receive the funding for this expanded entitlement, so it can be put to the benefit of further reducing child poverty in London?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend, the Select Committee Chair, for her constructive comments and for welcoming today’s announcement. Making all children in households claiming universal credit eligible for free school meals makes it straightforward for parents to know whether they are eligible. We are supporting that by taking forward a programme of work, including improvements to our own systems, which will make applying for free schools meals easier than it ever has been. As I mentioned in my statement, our proposals are fully funded. More broadly, we will set out more details in the forthcoming child poverty strategy around a number of the other measures she describes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.
I warmly welcome this announcement, which will make such a difference to the lives of children up and down the country. We know the impact that free school meals can have. A hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day helps children to learn, concentrate and thrive. Making sure a child does not go hungry in school can truly change their life. That is why Liberal Democrats have for so long championed free school meals. That is why we have long called on successive Governments to take this step. That is why this policy was in our election manifesto last year. I am delighted that, even though it was not in Labour’s manifesto, they are taking our idea today. The Liberal Democrats introduced universal infant free school meals when we were in government, and we are today sharing in the joy of the tireless campaigners and struggling families for whom this announcement is such as victory. For far too long, far too many children in this country have gone hungry through the school day. The previous Conservative Government ignored the advice of their own food tsar, Henry Dimbleby, and even Michael Gove, to leave children in poverty without the meals they deserve and need.
This announcement can only be the start. We need to see the policy fully funded and properly implemented. We need to see auto-enrolment, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, so that every child receives the meals they are entitled to, because thousands of eligible children currently miss out. Now we know that the Government are finally looking to the Liberal Democrats for policy ideas on tackling the cost of learning, may I urge them to look again at capping the cost of branded uniform items, not the number of branded uniform items? Lastly, if the Government are serious about tackling the scourge of child poverty, will they finally scrap the two-child benefit cap?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for welcoming so positively the announcement today. She has been, like so many others in her party, a real champion on these matters. She has made clear in this place how important the policy will be to children’s wellbeing, attainment and attendance, and I of course wholeheartedly agree with her. I note her call for auto-enrolment. She made those points at various intervals during the Committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I look forward to working with her to hear her views going forward. We will, of course, continue to improve ways of registering children for free school meals, as I set out earlier, and today’s announcement makes that easier for families and schools. I also pay tribute to school food campaigners, who I meet on a regular basis, for helping to get us to today’s announcement. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Lady through the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and to work constructively to improve the life chances of children and young people across our country.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
In July, I came from the classroom to this Chamber. I have seen the harm that poverty does to children, particularly those from families on universal credit who were not able to claim free school meals, probably because their parents were grafting in low-paid jobs or in insecure work. Does the Minister agree that having 500,000 more children fully entitled to a nutritious school dinner will boost school attendance and help narrow the education gap that widened under the Tories?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people in her constituency and in this place. As she rightly says, this announcement represents a significant expansion of food support for disadvantaged pupils in schools, reaching more than half a million pupils and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. It really demonstrates that we are a mission-driven Government. The anti-poverty and pro-learning measure that we have set out today is a downpayment on the child poverty strategy. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend as we deliver this positive change for her constituency.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Many of the schools in my constituency have been unable to take up the offer of breakfast clubs because, frankly, they do not have the facilities—either to provide breakfast in the first place or for the children to eat in, which is a real challenge. I want to ask the Minister about one specific issue, because I am concerned that it may create a cliff edge for parents. If the parents of a child attending school qualify for universal credit but then later get jobs, or better-paid jobs, and therefore no longer qualify for universal credit, would that child then lose their eligibility for free school meals? That could create a real problem for many parents and present us with a cliff edge. I am sure that is not the Government’s intention, but we need to make the position clear.
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman sets out the current position and what has happened in the past. What we are announcing today will lift more children out of poverty, because more children will be eligible for free school meals. He makes a number of points on breakfast clubs; obviously, we are committed to rolling out the clubs to every primary school in the country. I would be delighted to meet him to hear his particular thoughts and views on how that can make the biggest difference in his constituency.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Hungry children do not learn, so I thank the Government for listening to those of us who have long campaigned for this announcement. This Government’s reforms are starting to put more money into people’s pockets, tackling the root causes of poverty, but they will take time to bed in—time that hungry children simply do not have. The Minister knows that poverty is all-encompassing and extends well beyond the school day. Will he give the 470,000 children affected by the cruel two-child benefit cap some hope today that the Government are seriously considering scrapping the cap, and considering scrapping it very soon?
Stephen Morgan
As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are determined to bring down child poverty. This is a complex area that we need to get right, and it is not for me to comment on particular speculation at the moment. Extensive work is ongoing on the child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year, and an update in the House will be provided in due course.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As a Liberal Democrat, I warmly welcome the announcement today. I stood on a manifesto that mentioned this policy at the previous four general elections, and it is good news. However, it would be the best news if the Minister could explain more about what he means by fully funded. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I proudly report that I am in my 19th year as a primary school governor, so I know that school budgets are stretched to the limit. Will the Minister explain what he means when he says fully funded—does that mean fully funded from existing school budgets?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her time as a school governor, especially as we mark Volunteers’ Week. The work of school governors up and down the country is invaluable, and they play a particular role in supporting schools’ compliance with school food standards. We currently spend more than £1.5 billion on school food annually, delivering free school meals to around 3.5 million children. We will set out further details on the funding as part of our wider child poverty strategy in due course.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome this Labour Government’s announcement on expanding eligibility for free school meals to any child with a parent in receipt of universal credit. This expanded entitlement means that nearly 8,500 children in years 3 to 11 in Luton South and South Bedfordshire will be eligible for free school meals. Can the Minister confirm that this expansion will not only support children’s behaviour and attainment, but save their families up to £500 per child per year?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people in her constituency. She is absolutely right to set out the differences in the cost of living that this policy will make for parents; as she suggests, it will also have real benefits in behaviour, attendance and attainment, as I set out in my statement.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Minister has today made a big thing about every family in every corner of our country, and he has talked about how widespread this change will be. A small number of additional people in England will be able to get additional free school meals. I am glad that the Government have extended eligibility, but it does not have the geographical reach that he is trying to make out. Were he to remove the two-child benefit cap, that would have an effect in every part of these islands, reducing poverty in every constituency. Why is this issue being kicked into the long grass? He is making an announcement on free school meals, but the Government are refusing to make announcements on the child poverty strategy that was promised in the spring.
Stephen Morgan
Wasn’t that a nice try, Madam Deputy Speaker? Let us be clear: we are taking urgent action in the light of the scar of poverty on our society. We have the spending review next week, and the child poverty strategy will conclude in due course.
Stephen Morgan
If the hon. Lady had listened carefully to my statement, she would know that I said we will be announcing further details on the strategy later this year.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on school food since setting it up in 2010, so I know all too well the many benefits of free school meals, from the economic to health benefits—it is why I have campaigned for more than 18 years to extend free school meal provision. Providing more children than ever with free, healthy, hot and nutritious meals can be truly life changing. In my constituency, the provision will extend to a further 5,460 children, which is very welcome indeed, so I thank the Minister and our Government. Does the Minister agree that this down payment on the child poverty strategy is only the start of this Government’s mission to lift as many children out of poverty as possible, just as the previous Labour Government did?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend has been a real champion on school food issues ever since she was elected to this place. I had the pleasure of meeting her recently, along with campaigners she suggested I meet on these very points, so I know that her lobbying has directly influenced our outcomes today. We are making this announcement because of tough and necessary decisions that the Chancellor has had to make. It is a step in the right direction, and we will set out more detail on the child poverty strategy in due course.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am delighted that more children will have school meals at lunch time. It is great for pupils to be well fed—as a paediatrician, I see the value of that. However, I want to ask about transitional protection and money. The transitional protection will take 1.2 million children out of this category; some may go back into it with UC. However, the robbing of the money from pupil premiums will leave schools £1.5 billion short. How does the Minister intend to replace that £1.5 billion for schools so that children can get a good education as well as school meals?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question—I think I have finally heard from someone who is actually delighted by today’s announcement. On transitional protections, it is worth saying that the Department will expand free school meal eligibility from September 2026 so that all children in households in receipt of universal credit can benefit from a free nutritious lunch. As a temporary measure, we will extend transitional protections, meaning that households that are on universal credit and meet the current earned income threshold of £7,400 will keep their free school meals, regardless of any change in circumstances. Following an expansion of eligibility from September next year, our intention is to end all protections.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Tackling poverty and inequality is in our DNA, and it is why many Members on the Government Benches are in this place. I welcome this announcement, as I know the more than 3,000 children and their families who will benefit in Newcastle-under-Lyme will welcome it, too. It is good for health, good for educational attainment and, importantly, good for the futures of our young people. I very much agree with the point on auto-enrolment made by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). With that in mind, I ask the Minister to speak to his officials and find some time to come and see the benefits of our commitment to tackling child poverty in Newcastle-under-Lyme for himself when this announcement is rolled out next year.
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am keen to ensure that we learn from the best in local government, as we have been on auto-enrolment activity especially. As I mentioned earlier, today’s announcement will make the whole process of applying for free school meals much simpler and easier for parents, but we will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s comments. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss these issues further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
After this, we have two Select Committee statements and two Backbench Business debates. If colleagues do not keep their questions short, they are just denying others the opportunity to speak.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Vulnerable children spend many weeks each year—during the holidays—not at school. My own Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership local authority provides funding in the form of vouchers during the school holidays. Will the Government take this opportunity to end holiday hunger and provide funding for food during the holidays?
Stephen Morgan
We have invested more than £200 million in the holiday activities and food programme, which supports children, offers enrichment opportunities and provides good-quality food during the Christmas, Easter and summer provision. That is a fantastic programme that I know Members across this House welcome, and a key part of our plan to ensure that every child can succeed and thrive.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this fantastic news this morning. I think the Minister mentioned that child poverty is a scourge of society, and of course it is. It is a blight on the UK that we have so many kids who do not have a full belly when they go to school. Some 6,000 children in my constituency will now benefit from this announcement. However, can the Minister confirm that this is only the first step on a long road to universal free school meals for all children in the UK?
Stephen Morgan
Extensive work is ongoing on child poverty, and we will publish our strategy later this year. As part of that, we are considering all available levers to give every child the best start in life—whether that is on affordable housing, the cost of energy bills or supporting more parents to work. That, I think, is the change that our country needs.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome today’s announcement. It is a small step in the right direction, but what we need is a giant leap to end child poverty. If the Minister were serious about that, he knows what he needs to do: scrap the two-child benefit cap. That would lift 400,000 children out of poverty. The Green party has long campaigned for universal free school meals. We know that the health, education and productivity benefits would more than pay for that policy. The benefits would be £1.71 for every pound invested, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Will the Minister consider the moral and economic case for free school meals to be made universal? And, while he is at it, will he scrap the cruel two-child benefit cap?
Stephen Morgan
As the hon. Member will have heard earlier, I will not comment on speculation. Extensive work is under way on the child poverty strategy, which will conclude later this year. I describe this not as a small step today, but as an historic moment, as we lift 100,000 children out of poverty and make sure that more children across the country can access free school meals. I am delighted that so many are welcoming our announcement today.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
With one in two children in my constituency living in poverty, we now have a downpayment with a breakfast club funded by the Government at Thomas Fairchild community school and thousands of children are benefiting. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed with Henry Dimbleby, who opened the “chefs in schools” programme in Hackney, that we need to keep nutrition at the top of the list. My hon. Friend the Chair of the Education Committee highlighted that this is evidence-based policy. We know that the evidence on child poverty shows that removing the two-child limit will lift most children out of poverty. Can the Minister reassure us that he is really looking at that evidence, working with the Department for Work and Pensions, to make sure that this announcement is just the down- payment on tackling child poverty?
Stephen Morgan
As always, my hon. Friend comes at this from a very informed position. It was a real pleasure to visit a school in Hackney recently to see at first hand the brilliant work of the “chefs in schools” programme. That is why I am so delighted to say that we will be announcing further details on our school food standard work to update that guidance in due course. She mentions breakfast clubs. We have obviously tripled funding into breakfast clubs to over £30 million in this financial year, and we are making huge progress in delivering that through our early adopter scheme.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I welcome this announcement from the Government and celebrate the success of the Liberal Democrats, who for many years have campaigned on this policy, including my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has been so passionate about this issue. Indeed, this is a step in the right direction. My constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted is often seen as an affluent area, but there are pockets of poverty. Charities often say that it is harder in those areas, because not only are costs higher, but deprivation is hidden. Currently, the two-child benefit cap restricts universal support to two children, pushing thousands of families into poverty. Therefore, do these restrictions mean that the third and any subsequent children would not have access to free school meals, or would simply being in a household that receives universal credit be sufficient to qualify?
Stephen Morgan
I can assure the hon. Member that it will be for all children in that household. More broadly, we are introducing breakfast clubs, which is a universal offer in every primary school across the country. Other measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cap the number of branded items on school uniform, which I think will make a real difference to the money going into parents’ pockets.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this statement. In my constituency, more than a quarter of all children are living in poverty, so I know that more than 6,000 children in Dudley will now be eligible for free school meals. The extra support will go a long way towards ensuring that our children are eating healthy and nutritious meals to aid their education. Will my hon. Friend assure me that these free school meals will be low in fat, sugar and salt, in order also to help tackle rising childhood obesity?
Stephen Morgan
If we are to get the benefits right on free school meals, we must ensure that the quality of the food is nutritious for all children. As I mentioned in my statement, this is good for attendance, good for behaviour and good for life chances. I hope my hon. Friend will contribute to the work that we will do in revising the school food standards.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Sadly, a local survey recently found that close to 20% of children in Leicester are worried about not having enough to eat. But, paradoxically, a quarter of the population of 10 to 11-year-olds in my city are clinically obese, and close to 40% have visual signs of dental decay. I warmly welcome this announcement, but why are the Government waiting till September 2026 to make these changes? Will the Minister reassure us that this policy will be properly funded so that schools can provide nutritious and balanced meals, and not just ultra-processed food like turkey twizzlers, which have been shown, among many other things, to reduce life expectancy?
Stephen Morgan
I can assure the hon. Member that this scheme will be fully funded. More broadly, I have set out plans for the child poverty strategy to be published later this year. The key to a mission-driven Government is to make sure that Government Departments are working together to improve life chances for children. I am delighted that we are working closely with colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care to make that happen.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted that this announcement will see more than 2,000 extra children qualify for free school meals in my Banbury constituency. Can the Minister explain how this announcement will improve the educational attainment and behaviour of children in my constituency?
Stephen Morgan
I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion for children and young people from the time that I spent with him in his constituency. As he rightly says, this policy makes a real difference on attainment, behaviour and attendance. I look forward to working with him as we deliver this positive change for our country.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, welcome the adoption of a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and the Minister’s encouragement of other Lib Dem policies in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). There has been some discussion about the pupil premium. This policy seems to break the link between free school meals and the pupil premium, so can the Minister explain to those 2.2 million pupils currently in receipt of the pupil premium what safeguards will be put in place to protect it?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Member will know that the pupil premium is additional funding to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in state-funded schools in England. Pupil premium funding will rise to over £3 billion in 2025-26, an increase of almost 5% from 2024-25. We are reviewing how we allocate pupil premium and the national funding formula deprivation funding in the longer term and, while maintaining the overall amount we spend on tackling challenges faced by children with additional needs, we will provide more information on those matters in due course.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, with today’s announcement, alongside the proactive Gravesham borough council’s low-income family tracker programme, which has reached out and helped hundreds, if not thousands, of people who need it most in Gravesham, the Labour Government will lift a further 5,800 children who are eligible in Gravesham. Is this not the great, nutritious start in life that we need?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend really cares about these issues, and I thank her for raising these matters today. This is a significant first step in our ambitious strategy to tackle child poverty and its root causes and to give every child the best start in life. I commend the work that she describes; I know that it makes a real difference to areas such as her own.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I warmly welcome this today’s announcement, which has been a Liberal Democrat policy for a very long time. It is so important to have proper nutrition for children so that they get the best possible start in life. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about funding, the Minister said that this will come out in due course, but that it will be fully funded. Fully funded can mean that those funds come from various different places. Will the Minister rule out those funds coming from existing school budgets, and will he also rule out placing any other financial burden on to already overstretched school budgets?
Stephen Morgan
The new entitlement is fully funded and will support schools to deliver nutritious, high-quality meals that meet school food standards to over half a million additional pupils. As I said, we will set out further details on funding as part of the child poverty strategy to be published later this year.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I notice that not one Reform MP has turned up to hear an announcement that benefits so many working-class kids. I first joined a governing body of a primary school in my constituency in 1986 and served for 37 years. From Thatcher to Sunak, I saw what was going on in our schools, and I never saw need like that under the last Conservative Government, so this is a very welcome statement indeed. But even this measure and all the other measures that I understand the Government are considering will not result in fewer children being in poverty in 2029 than are in poverty now unless we remove the two-child benefit cap. I want to add my voice to those who have already asked the Minister to assure us that the cap is being looked at.
Stephen Morgan
We know that too many life chances are scarred by poverty, which affects children up and down our country. Levels of poverty have increased by 900,000 since 2010. It is worth saying that this initiative is extra money above and beyond what already goes into schools. As I mentioned, the child poverty strategy will be published later this year and may conclude on the issues that my hon. Friend describes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome it and say well done. It just so happens that it is this Minister and this Government who have done it so well, so I give a special thanks. I very much welcome the increase to free school meals. I read the Government’s press release this morning with some interest. My question is quite specific. In Northern Ireland, one in four children experience relative poverty, with one in five in absolute poverty and two thirds of those with only one single parent working. Our children in Northern Ireland need this help. I know that it is not this Minister’s responsibility, but do the announcement and these moneys mean that the Barnett consequentials will ensure that some of the benefit can come to Northern Ireland directly?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is a real champion on these issues. He will appreciate that education is a devolved matter. The spending review next week will set out details on the Barnett consequentials. The child poverty strategy is a UK-wide document, and I know that colleagues from Northern Ireland have been feeding into that review. As he knows, I meet regularly with my counterpart in Northern Ireland on issues of importance to the UK.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
As others have, I very much welcome the announcement. For the thousands of families in my constituency with children in poverty, this is a great announcement. However, I remember the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government need to go further and faster, so I encourage the Minister when he goes back to his Department to ensure that the child poverty strategy is as radical as it can be and is adequately resourced. I ask him to return to the question of people on universal credit with children in poverty. Can we ensure that every child benefits from this announcement, because some families lack the capacity—for all sorts of reasons—to make the appropriate applications?
Stephen Morgan
We of course want to ensure that all families that are eligible for this roll-out benefit from it. Working with other Government Departments, we want to make the process as simple as possible. We are determined to bring down child poverty. We appreciate that the issues are complex, and we want to get this right. We will set out more details in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There are 15 colleagues remaining. If you want me to get you all in, work with me and keep your questions short please. I call Yasmin Qureshi.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
This is really welcome news for families in my constituency, with up to 11,450 children now set to benefit from free school meals. I know from speaking with parents that this will make a real difference both in easing pressure at home and in helping children to focus and do well in school. Does the Minister agree that this is the kind of support that families have needed for years, and it is a clear sign that the Government are serious about tackling child poverty and giving every child a fair chance?
Stephen Morgan
As I set out earlier, this is an intervention that is at once pro-learning and anti-poverty. We want to see high and rising standards in all our schools. Excellence should be for everyone. In complete contrast, the Opposition—their Members are not here now; I do not know where they have gone—want to see tax breaks for some schools for some children. The contrast has never been starker.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
As someone who grew up on free school meals in Rochdale, I know what a massive difference today’s announcement will make to more than 8,000 of my constituents. One of my constituents, Laura Popham, is a single mum who is in work and was previously ineligible for the free school meals benefit. Today she sent me an email saying,
“This is exactly what I was hoping for. I am over the moon. I want to shout from the rooftops how happy I am. Only Labour would have done this.”
Does the Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of change that people voted for last year?
Stephen Morgan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is the difference that a Labour MP and a Labour Government can make. I pay tribute to Laura for raising these issues with us. Through constituents’ lobbying and by hearing their concerns, we are delivering positive change for our country.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I applaud the Government’s decision to extend free school meals to children across the country. This initiative is a vital step in supporting families in need and will undoubtedly benefit many children across Blackpool, which the Minister will know, as he joined me in visiting primary schools last year. Many, including the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation, have called for accelerated efforts to ensure that every child has access to nutritious meals irrespective of their background. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that we unite in our efforts to guarantee that every child in Blackpool and across the country has the best possible start in life, with access to healthy food, quality education and opportunities for success?
Stephen Morgan
It was a pleasure to visit primary schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I know that he cares deeply about tackling child poverty. That is why I am delighted that we are taking this intervention to lift over 100,000 children out of poverty. He makes a number of points regarding good-quality nutritious food, and I hope he will work with us as we set out plans to make changes in this area in due course.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
In my constituency 5,730 children will benefit from this announcement. It means a hot meal every day and real, practical support for families who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. Does the Minister agree that while we expect the Conservative party to block this support, as they have for many years, Reform MPs could not even be bothered to turn up today? They talk about supporting families, but they are nowhere to be seen when it matters.
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is the stark choice that people voted for at the last election, and I am really proud that we are getting on with delivering the change that our country so desperately needs.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement from the Government. In Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, it means a massive 47% increase in eligibility for free school meals, but the work will not be done until all children who are eligible for free school meals are able to access them, and I have asked my local council leader to do everything they can to ensure that. I know that the Government are considering this, but does the Minister agree that councils need to be doing everything they can to ensure that all children who are eligible are able to access their free school meals?
Stephen Morgan
I know from my hon. Friend’s previous contributions in the House that she is a real champion on these issues. Making all children in households claiming universal credit eligible for free school meals makes it straightforward for parents to know whether they are eligible. We are supporting this by taking forward a programme of work, including improvements to our own systems, and we are working across Government to make that happen.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
As a Member of Parliament, I am always delighted to come to work to talk about policies such as this, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty and give 4,500 children in my constituency access to free school meals. As a parent, I know how much of a difference this will make to the lives of parents in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that policies that give any child, wherever they are born and whatever their background, the chance to fulfil their potential are exactly what a Labour Government should be doing?
Stephen Morgan
I agree with my hon. Friend; we want to ensure that every child—whatever their background, wherever they are from—can succeed and thrive. This policy is an important step in making that happen by lifting 100,000 children out of poverty.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Up to 3,130 children in South Norfolk will benefit from this measure, and two of my primary schools are among the 750 in the forerunner programme for breakfast clubs. As the Minister is on such a roll in South Norfolk, will he help me fix the two schools—Brooke primary and Wreningham —that are currently in portacabins?
Stephen Morgan
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those matters further.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
In Darlington, I met a lovely mother who had recently gone back to work as a school dinner support worker. She was taking part-time, low-paid work, and her children consequently lost eligibility for free school meals, so she was worse off. I promised her that only Labour would be on the side of low-paid working families. Will the Minister join me in saying to that lady, “Promise made, promise delivered”?
Stephen Morgan
That is absolutely right: promise made, promise delivered. I am so delighted that my hon. Friend has been raising these issues with us and that we are now getting on and delivering on them.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Almost one in three children in my constituency live in poverty, and I know that going to school hungry is one of the biggest barriers to thriving not only in childhood but into adulthood, so I welcome the statement. Will the Minister confirm that this measure, along with free breakfast clubs and cutting the cost of school uniforms, will not only benefit family finances but improve school attainment, behaviour and learning outcomes?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is right to raise the benefits that this measure will bring on attendance, attainment and behaviour. I know that she is a real champion on these issues and that she will be really excited about ensuring that this happens across her constituency as quickly as possible.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In Colchester, this measure will benefit over 5,000 children, so it is wonderful news from a Government who are indeed determined to tackle child poverty. Would the Minister like to make a return visit to Colchester, this time to visit not a pioneering pre-school but a pioneering primary school—Unity primary academy in Greenstead—which has just opened a community kitchen that creates an amazing food culture for local families?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the Minister is on a tour, I assume that he will be coming to Sussex Weald shortly.
Stephen Morgan
I am not sure whether my office will be happy about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am sure we can make it happen. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I also want to pay tribute to school support staff and teachers who do so much to ensure that children across our country can achieve and thrive. They will know that this Labour Government have their back.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
In one fell swoop, this measure will take 100,000 children out of poverty. In my constituency, 2,500 children will benefit. Fighting poverty is in the Labour party’s DNA, but with over 4.5 million children left in poverty by the Conservative party, which has not turned up for the statement, will the Minister please assure me that we will not stop there and that there will be meaningful change through the child poverty strategy this autumn?
Stephen Morgan
I assure my hon. Friend that we will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure that we deliver fully funded measures that make a big difference to children’s lives.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
This announcement to extend free school meals will be hugely welcome news to the families of the 4,300 children in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich that are in receipt of universal credit. There is a wealth of evidence that good nutrition at school has a significant impact on educational attainment, health and wellbeing and long-term earnings potential. If we are serious about bearing down on the rising levels of child poverty, which are now just short of 30% in my constituency, that starts with measures such as this, which I am sure will be the first of many. Does the Minister agree that this change in eligibility presents an opportunity at a national level to improve data sharing with local authorities so that we can finally facilitate auto-enrolment and ensure that the maximum number of families benefit from this policy?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is right to raise the difference that a Labour Government make and the scar of child poverty on our society. I assure him that we are working across the Department to deliver what he described.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
This change will make a difference to the lives of thousands of children in my Gateshead constituency, and may I say it would have been hugely welcomed by my grandmother who was a Gateshead dinner lady? Does the Minister agree that through 30 hours of free childcare, a limit on the number of branded school items, free breakfast clubs and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty, Labour is the party for children and families?
Stephen Morgan
We said that we would be a child-centred Government, and that is what we are delivering. The announcement is testament to that.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I whole- heartedly thank the Minister for this much-needed announcement. Up to 5,600 children in my constituency will no doubt be grateful for the relief it brings to their families in easing the financial pressures that many face. Will the Minister confirm that this is just the first step in a wider strategy to tackle child poverty and that areas like Leigh and Atherton will be central to that effort?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that one reason she is in the House is to tackle deprivation and poverty across the country and in her own constituency. I assure her that we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity and to start to bring down child poverty levels in our society.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
As the proud son of a dinner lady, I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Employment at his side, who is a tribune in the Government and the House against child poverty. With nearly one in two children in my constituency in poverty—a stain left by the last Government—this will be a welcome policy. Up to 16,000 pupils will be eligible for free school meals across Peterborough because of this policy, but that is just the start. What more can the Minister do to keep a razor-sharp focus on driving down poverty and driving up opportunities for young people in my city?
Stephen Morgan
This, of course, is the latest step in our plan for change to put extra pounds in parents’ pockets. It is a down payment on the child poverty strategy, as I mentioned earlier, building on our expansion of free breakfast clubs, our national minimum wage boost and our cap on universal credit deductions through the fair repayment rate. Those are real measures that will make a real difference to people’s lives.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome wholeheartedly the announcement, not least because it means that almost 4,000 children in my constituency will benefit from free, healthy school meals, saving parents almost £500 a year. That is in addition to the breakfast clubs, of which we have two on the early adopter scheme. Does the Minister agree that as grateful as we are to wonderful people including the bean man, who can often be seen in Willington, Repton and surrounding areas collecting food for food banks, this is a step towards lifting people out of poverty so that we will no longer need food banks?
Stephen Morgan
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that she will want to feed into the child poverty strategy to ensure that it is ambitious, but I assure her that that is our intention.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Today, I am thinking of the teacher from my constituency who told me that they had to keep cereal bars in their office for children who came to school hungry. That is the legacy of the Conservative party, and I am not surprised that Conservative Members have not turned up to face the music. Research shows that people living with mental health conditions are twice as likely to be living in food-insecure households. Does the Minister agree that this announcement will make a huge change to our young people’s mental health, and that that is exactly what people voted for when they voted Labour?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is right to set out that mental health can be a barrier to every child having the opportunity to succeed and thrive. He will know that we are investing in mental health support teams in every school across the country as well as recruiting 8,500 mental health professionals and introducing young futures hubs in communities. I know that he will welcome those wider plans for our country and will ensure that they are rolled out effectively in his constituency.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement, which will help more than 4,000 working-class children in my community. The Minister rightly emphasised that the expansion of free school meals is both pro-learning and anti-poverty, and we know that the appalling cost of living crisis, which the previous Government left behind, means that so many children are coming into school hungry and not in the best position to learn. Will he set out what else the Government are doing to tackle the poverty that is holding back so many children?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend will know that we are already committed to rolling out breakfast clubs in every primary school. We want to ensure that there is more money in parents’ pockets through our childcare entitlement roll-out. More broadly, the child poverty strategy will be ambitious on improving outcomes and life chances for every young person.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am personally delighted and looking forward to hosting the Minister in my constituency.
Criminal Cases Review Commission: Leadership
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Justice Committee. Andy Slaughter will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement.
I rise to make a statement on the third report of the Justice Committee, which is titled “Leadership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission”. I first want to place on the record my thanks to the Committee secretariat for their work in preparing the report and to the members of the Committee. Even though I thank all my colleagues, I will particularly mention the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for her thorough questioning of witnesses at our evidence session.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body with statutory responsibility for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has the power to refer a case back to an appeal court if it considers that there is a real possibility that the court will quash the conviction or reduce the sentence in that case. The CCRC is a hugely important organisation, and it is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system that it works effectively. Our report found that that was not currently the case.
On 14 January 2025, the chair of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, resigned following the decision of an independent panel convened by the Lord Chancellor, which concluded by a majority that she should no longer head the organisation. The panel found that the chair had failed to restore confidence in the CCRC in the aftermath of Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal in July 2023. The panel also found that she had not sufficiently challenged the performance of the chief executive of the CCRC, Karen Kneller.
On 29 April 2025, the Committee held an evidence session with Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce, casework operations director at the CCRC. Both are very long-serving senior managers. The Committee asked the witnesses about Chris Henley KC’s independent review of their handling of the Andrew Malkinson case, their leadership of the CCRC and the CCRC’s remote working policies. Before and after the session on 29 April, the Committee received a significant amount of information from individuals who have worked with and for the CCRC, from casework managers to commissioners. The evidence presented to the Committee indicated that, in an echo of Mr Malkinson’s own words, a root-and-branch review of how the CCRC operates is urgently needed. We intend our findings to inform that work.
Since our report was published on 23 May, Dame Vera Baird KC has been appointed as interim chair of the CCRC. I welcome the appointment of such an experienced and respected figure who has the skills and robustness to reform an organisation that has lost its way so fundamentally. I also welcome that, at the Committee’s request, the chair of the CCRC has been added to the list of roles for which the Justice Committee conducts pre-appointment scrutiny.
The cases of Andrew Malkinson, who was imprisoned for almost 20 years for a crime he did not commit, and Peter Sullivan, who spent 38 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, underline the importance of the CCRC’s role. Both Mr Malkinson and Mr Sullivan made applications to the CCRC, which were rejected. The failings in the Malkinson case have been made abundantly clear by Chris Henley KC’s review. Our report does not rehearse the facts of that case; rather, it addresses the way the CCRC conducted itself in response.
I want to highlight two key points in relation to the Henley report: the insufficiency of the CCRC’s apology to Mr Malkinson and the delays in the publication of the report. It should not have taken an independent review for the CCRC to apologise to Andrew Malkinson. The public statements of the then chair, Helen Pitcher, after Andrew Malkinson’s acquittal were woefully inadequate and showed a worrying lack of understanding of the potential damage to the CCRC’s reputation and public confidence that would almost inevitably arise from a failure to admit its mistakes and apologise. By failing to offer a timely apology, the leadership of the CCRC caused significant damage to the organisation’s reputation. The CCRC’s statements gave the impression that the organisation and its leadership were more concerned with defending their own reputation than offering an honest assessment of how they had failed Andrew Malkinson.
The Committee was unpersuaded by the justifications given by Karen Kneller for the delays in the publication of the Henley report. The report was provided to the CCRC in January 2024, but not published until July 2024. Among the reasons for the delay in publication given to us by Ms Kneller on 29 April was that the report was a draft that contained typographical errors that needed correcting. In an exchange of letters with the Committee, Chris Henley KC told us that his report had not contained typographical errors, but that the CCRC had instead asked him to make substantive changes to its wording, and he provided us with evidence of that.
We also found it was inappropriate for the CCRC to suggest to Chris Henley KC that his report should not draw broader conclusions on the CCRC as an organisation based on his analysis of their handling of Andrew Malkinson’s case. The CCRC’s leadership should have accepted the gravity of the failings in the handling of the case and their wider implications. We were further unpersuaded by Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce’s explanation that publication of the Henley report was not possible because of the proximity of the general election.
When Karen Kneller and Amanda Pearce appeared before us on 29 April, we provided them with an opportunity to respond to public criticisms of the leadership’s recent performance. The answers provided to the Committee did not inspire confidence; on the contrary, the partial nature of their answers led Chris Henley KC and Chris Webb—a crisis communications consultant employed by the CCRC to advise on the Henley report and the response to it—to write to us to correct points made by Karen Kneller on 29 April. Both Chris Henley and Chris Webb made allegations that Ms Kneller had misled the Committee. In the spirit of fairness, the Committee offered Karen Kneller the opportunity to respond directly in writing to those allegations and incorporated her responses into our report.
The allegations made by Chris Henley and Chris Webb served to reinforce the sense that the leadership of the CCRC had continually failed to learn from its mistakes and confront its failings with the seriousness required. As a result of our concerns regarding the performance of the CCRC and the unpersuasive evidence Karen Kneller provided to the Committee, the Committee concluded it was no longer tenable for her to continue as chief executive of the CCRC.
The conclusions the Committee reached were far broader than just those relating to the chief executive and to the organisation as a whole. Commissioners form the body corporate of the organisation and make the key decisions with regard to the CCRC’s work, and we were alarmed that the CCRC had operated without a full quota of commissioners since 2023. We were also disappointed that the terms of commissioner recruitment only require commissioners to work 52 days per year. The responsibility for the lack of commissioner recruitment in recent years is an issue for both the Ministry of Justice and the CCRC. We made recommendations that the incoming interim chair’s review of the organisation should consider whether the terms of appointment for commissioners, the corporate structure of the CCRC and the commission’s relationship with the MOJ are currently appropriate to ensure that the CCRC has the resources it needs to operate effectively. I understand that the terms of reference of that review will be published shortly.
During the pandemic, the CCRC moved to remote-first as a means of operation, which it has retained. That is out of step with the rest of the public sector and seems unsuited to the nature of the commission’s work. We were particularly shocked that both Ms Kneller and Ms Pearce, the senior leadership of the organisation, only attend the office once or twice every few months. We recommended that senior leadership should have a regular presence in the office, particularly in the light of recent events and the high-profile criticism directed at the commission.
Exclusively remote working is not suited to a body that relies on investigation and challenge to correct miscarriages of justice. The CCRC is a hugely important organisation and the senior leadership could have done much more in their evidence to reassure us that they understood the seriousness of the criticisms it has faced, and the need for an overhaul of the organisation to rebuild public trust and provide applicants to the CCRC with the justice they deserve.
For an organisation that is designed to identify failures within the criminal justice system, the CCRC’s leadership has shown a remarkable inability to learn from its own mistakes. The new interim chair, Dame Vera Baird KC, will now conduct a review of the CCRC, and it is already clear from her public statements that she is across the scale and complexity of the task that she has been set, including the issues raised in our report. There is a real prospect of changes being made at CCRC, and I am hopeful that that will lead to better outcomes for those who have been victims of miscarriages of justice.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I very much welcome the appointment of Dame Vera Baird. However, the culture that has built up at the CCRC around the remote-first policy seems to have led to very lax working practices. After she has finished in the role of interim chair, what is the future for scrutinising the CCRC so that it does not fall back into that sort of lax behaviour?
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend because although that is a management point, it is a substantive one because the work done by caseworkers within the CCRC requires investigation and is sensitive, and they have to be robust and thorough in what they do. The collegiate experience that people get from working in an office together is essential to that. Similar bodies would expend at least 60% of their time in the office. Those are the sort of criteria I would expect to be addressed in Dame Vera Baird’s review so we can go forward with an organisation that is fit for purpose.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his presentation. In his introduction, he referred to the input from Northern Ireland. Did that involve the policing and justice Minister and all the major political parties to ensure that we have a collective point of view on the delivery of the recommendations?
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful, as always, to the hon. Gentleman for his question. All I can say today is that the CCRC covers Northern Ireland and that any recommendations that come from Dame Vera Baird’s review must also affect the other jurisdictions in which the CCRC has a role. Clearly, most of the points that we dealt with in what was a relatively short inquiry related to England and Wales, but I will ensure that Northern Ireland is not forgotten going forward.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Chair of the Select Committee and the appointment of Dame Vera Baird as the interim chair. Does my hon. Friend share a certain incredulity that the Ministry of Justice took three years to resolve the fee that would be paid to commissioners, and that the recruitment exercise appears to be taking 18 months to resolve? What is going on there? Does he believe that the terms of appointment for commissioners should be reviewed to ensure that they can play a greater role in the day-to-day running of the CCRC?
Andy Slaughter
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I see that the Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), is in her place and she was no doubt listening, because there are some quite trenchant criticisms of the Ministry of Justice, as well as of the CCRC itself, in the report—in particular, the feeling that both organisations have taken their eye off the ball on overall governance. When the CCRC was set up, commissioners were in full-time, salaried positions and had a substantial role in the running of the organisation. They now work remotely part time and on a fee-paid basis.
My hon. Friend praised Dame Vera Baird, and I would like to add that this is a difficult job, which may be why the review is taking so long and why it took so long to appoint her. The role needs someone with both an eye for detail and the gravitas to do it. I am confident that she has that, but to leave the organisation in a fit state, she will need to do something fundamental about its governance, and the commissioners will be central to that.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his remarks. As a member of the Committee, I can attest to our dismay at what we heard in those hearings. I ask the Chair to encourage Dame Vera Baird to take a robust approach to her review of the leadership of such an important public body.
Andy Slaughter
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous and very qualified member of the Committee, and often puts me to shame in relation to my knowledge of matters. Anybody who listened to Dame Vera’s interview on the “Today” programme this week, in which she addressed several times the report and these findings, as well as three other reports that there have been over the past 10 years, will be under no illusion about whether she understands the scale of the task she faces and has the skills to tackle it.
Governing the Marine Environment
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the second Select Committee statement on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee. Mr Toby Perkins will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions and not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to present to the House the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on “Governing the marine environment”. Ahead of World Ocean Day and the United Nations ocean conference next week, there is an opportunity for the Government to send a clear signal that the UK is serious about protecting our marine environment. That is why the Committee worked hard to publish our report in a timely manner to advance that effort.
I am grateful to all members of the Committee for their contributions. This is the first inquiry that has been initiated and completed by this Committee, and it has been a pleasure to conduct the inquiry together. I wish to record my, and the whole Committee’s, huge gratitude to the staff of the Environmental Audit Committee, in particular Dr Misha Patel, who worked tirelessly and swiftly to produce the report.
The Committee initiated the inquiry due to the critical importance of, and risks to, our marine environment. Oceans regulate the Earth’s temperature, absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, support biodiversity, underpin diverse industries and offer significant cultural, heritage and recreational value. At the same time, they are under immense pressure from a variety of activities, and those activities are governed by a complex and fragmented regime of regulation and policy. The Committee heard that this lack of joined-up governance and effective stakeholder engagement risks the unsustainable management and potential depletion of critical marine resources. In fact, UK waters are already failing assessments of their environmental health, leading the Office for Environmental Protection to investigate a suspected failure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take the necessary measures to achieve “good environmental status” of marine waters.
It was a great pleasure and honour for many Members of Parliament to watch the film “Ocean” in the company of Sir David Attenborough yesterday. We heard the Prime Minister, in his warm embrace of Sir David, assert that his Government would take nature seriously, echoing the importance of action on oceans ahead of next week’s conference. The Committee is in excited anticipation of the announcements that the Government will make ahead of next week’s conference.
Turning to the report’s findings in more detail, I wish to highlight four topics on which the Committee heard detailed evidence and has made recommendations to the Government. The first is on bottom trawling. While marine protected areas cover nearly 900,000 square kilometres of English waters, activities that harm marine life are still allowed in lots of those areas. The film “Ocean” I referred to clearly showed the devastation of the seabed caused by bottom trawling. Extractive and damaging practices undermine the very objectives that MPAs were established to address. While the Government have indicated that they are committed to not having bottom trawling in areas that damage MPAs, they have not yet set out a timeline for implementing the change. Every day we wait, further damage is done to the seabed and crucial ocean ecosystems. The Committee concluded that damaging practices, such as bottom trawling, dredging and mining aggregates, should be banned in offshore protected areas.
Beyond protected areas at sea, the Committee heard that the overarching vision for how our oceans are used and managed is outdated and does not reflect the current or evolving pressures on the marine environment. The current marine policy statement published in 2011, for example, seeks to maximise the production of oil and gas. That is clearly not the current Government’s policy, but it is according to the MPS. The Committee recommends that the Government bring forward a long overdue review of the marine policy statement to update it to ensure that it reflects current Government policy and sets out how decisions will be made to balance marine exploitation and marine protection.
On marine spatial planning, the Committee heard that the marine spatial prioritisation programme should be key in guiding marine governance and spatial planning of activities at sea, such as protected areas, renewables development and fishing. However, it remains unclear what outcomes are expected and what has been delivered by the programme to date. We urge the Government to clarify the scope, objectives and outputs of the marine spatial prioritisation programme to ensure that it effectively implements the Government’s vision for the sustainable use of the marine environment. Changes in marine spatial planning will have real impacts on those who rely on the sea for their livelihoods. The Government must ensure that traditional marine sectors are supported through these changes to retain their expertise and support sustainable practices.
Finally, the Committee heard that despite signing the UN high seas treaty in September 2023, the UK has so far failed to ratify it. This crucial treaty would protect marine life in the high seas by establishing protected areas in international waters. Until the treaty is ratified by 60 nations, it will not come into force. We urge the Government to set a clear timeline for introducing the required legislation for ratifying the treaty before September 2025, which will mark two years since the UK signed it. This would send a clear signal that global marine protection is a priority for the Government, and it would take the UK and the world one step closer to real protection for marine life in the high seas.
In our hearings, Ministers confirmed that it remains Government policy to ratify the treaty but explained that not enough time had been found in the parliamentary schedule for legislation. It is crucial, both for the UK’s contribution and for the treaty to come into force, that it is ratified. We call on the Government to bring that forward now.
While the urgency of the situation for the marine environment is clear, there is an opportunity to turn things around. The evidence is indisputable, and the Government have a number of policy tools and options at their disposal. It is time to act to protect the marine environment. Ahead of the UN ocean conference next week, I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s plans to safeguard our oceans for the future.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement, and I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee for its excellent and thoughtful report on governing the marine environment. A key component in that is marine conservation and protection, including the myriad species living in that environment, such as cetaceans.
There is no humane way to kill a whale, and sadly the barbaric practice of hunting and killing whales and dolphins still continues. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the United Kingdom can play a pivotal role in ending this practice with its global soft power, and in treaty negotiations, trade deals and fisheries negotiations, by putting pressure on countries like Japan, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands to stop this horrific practice in our seas and oceans once and for all?
Mr Perkins
The shadow Minister makes an important point. I know that the previous Government wrestled with this, and the current Government will too. It was not featured in our report, but I know my Front-Bench colleagues will listen and take it seriously. I thank him for raising that point.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. It has been a privilege to be involved in the Committee’s work on this report. Does he agree that next week’s UN ocean conference offers the Government a unique opportunity to take a global lead on banning destructive practices such as bottom trawling in marine protected areas, as our report recommends?
Mr Perkins
I thank my hon. Friend and Committee colleague for her contribution. I absolutely agree. The warm words we heard from the Prime Minister yesterday were incredibly encouraging, but we need to see them backed up with real action. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say at the conference.
It is important that we negotiate strongly overseas, but we must also get our own act in order in this country. It would be a valuable signal ahead of the ocean conference if the Government committed to what we signed up to in opposition, and in our manifesto, and banned bottom trawling in marine protected areas.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. It is a privilege to serve on the Environmental Audit Committee.
While the UK Government have committed to not allowing any new oil and gas licences—I would like to see them go further—the marine spatial plan still says that we should maximise production of oil and gas. Is that not outrageously out of date, and is it not urgent that the Government update the strategy so that we have joined-up policy to tackle the climate crisis?
Mr Perkins
I absolutely agree. We know that that is not the Government’s policy, but according to the MPS it is. That demonstrates the urgency of updating the plan, which goes back to 2011. It was updated after Brexit, but it clearly bears no relationship to the Government’s current policies. We expect those who use the sea in different ways to listen to the plan, so it is important that the plan reflects current policy. That is an important recommendation we made in our report, and I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for how he has conducted this inquiry and presented the report to the House. I also thank the Clerks and officials who prepared the report under considerable stress—we are very grateful for their work.
I ask my hon. Friend to reflect further on the situation with the BBNJ treaty. I spoke this morning to the Journal Office, the House of Commons Library specialist and the Clerk of the House, and it has become clear that the BBNJ treaty was in fact laid on the Table of the House on 16 October 2023, and its 21-day sitting period has therefore long since passed without objection.
It appears that the Government are misleading themselves by saying that they have to pass the implementing primary legislation before they can ratify it and table the instrument of ratification at the United Nations ocean conference next week. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that ratification by 60 states is vital—we are two short at the moment, as I understand it—it is important that there is no statutory objection to our tabling the instrument next week, and that we should get on and do it?
Mr Perkins
I certainly think we should get on and do it. My hon. Friend raises an important point about whether primary legislation is needed. It is clear that the Government believe it is, and the evidence our Committee heard is that the Government are trying to find time for that. My hon. Friend makes an innovative suggestion, and I am sure the Government will listen. I think there is agreement across the House that this is important. It was the policy of the previous Government, but it was never brought forward; it is the policy of this Government, and it has never been brought forward. I think we would all agree that it is tremendously important for ratification to take place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for introducing the report and for mentioning bottom trawling. My understanding from speaking to the fish producers’ organisations in my constituency and across Northern Ireland is that they are committed to the vision of stopping bottom trawling, and I think the feeling is the same across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If our fishermen and fisherwomen have the vision to stop bottom trawling, what is being done to ensure that other European countries have the same vision?
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point and for his attention to these matters. The Committee looked in detail at bottom trawling, and we heard from a number of experts. It is also important to say that there is a devolved element. We considered the question of whether the Government’s plan should impose highly protected marine areas on devolved jurisdictions. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need consistency on this across the UK, and that we must insist on the same from nations across Europe and the rest of the world.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
David Attenborough has said that we know more about the surface of the moon than we know about the bottom of our oceans and the ecosystems that exist down there. It is disturbing that Donald Trump—who else?—has signed a directive allowing deep-sea mining. Can this issue be taken up at next week’s conference to try to secure co-operation on studying the bottom of our oceans and understanding the ecosystems before we do permanent damage that we might regret?
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend characteristically makes an important point. I am sure the Minister heard and will consider it. We commented on deep-sea mining in marine protected areas in our report. The film “Ocean” demonstrated how much we are already starting to learn, and the vastness of our knowledge gap in this area. My hon. Friend is right that we must continue to invest. The report talks about making sure that we have better data and information, and making sure that, on a global basis, we do not allow further degradation of this crucial ecosystem.
Bill presented
Pension Schemes
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Liz Kendall, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary John Healy, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Peter Kyle, Jim McMahon, Ellie Reeves, Georgia Gould, Al Carns and Mary Creagh presented a Bill to make provision about pension schemes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 9 June, and to be printed (Bill 255), with explanatory notes (Bill 255-EN).
Bank Closures and Banking Hubs
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the importance of banking facilities to local communities and expresses concern over the precipitous decline over the past 40 years; notes the change to banking habits through online services; further recognises that, for vulnerable people, face-to-face banking is a vital service and a reduction of branches risks significant financial exclusion; further notes the impact of a loss of physical banking on small businesses through lost productivity and lost footfall; also notes the innovative nature of banking hubs as a solution to a loss of high street banking, but recognises that Financial Conduct Authority rules for their recommendation are too inflexible; and calls on the Government to instigate a review into the impact on communities of bank branch loss and a change to the regulations to ensure communities have appropriate access to banking facilities.
On 26 February, I held a debate in Westminster Hall on high street banking and bank closures. Despite the fact that it was only a 30-minute debate, it was incredibly well attended. Such was the demand for a debate on the issues facing almost every community and constituency that, at its conclusion, I was urged to apply for a Backbench Business debate—so here we are this afternoon. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee for granting such an important debate and to all the Members across the House who co-signed my application, in particular the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who co-sponsored it.
This debate, like the previous one, is timely. There has been a precipitous decline in banking provision in the UK over a period of four decades. It has been partially driven by the rapid advances in technology, which have seen a huge uptake of internet banking, but we should not kid ourselves—it has also been driven by a desire from banks still raking in enormous profits to centralise and cut costs, with no regard for the communities they purport to serve.
Communities are being sacrificed at the altar of greed, at the behest of banks that no longer see the services they provide as profitable, and as is so often the case, the elderly, the disabled and the poor, who either cannot cope with computers or cannot afford expensive broadband, are the ones who have been hit the hardest. Moreover, the closures have further eroded local economies, with fewer visits to the high street being made and local businesses having additional costs linked to such practicalities as making cash deposits.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the issues caused for businesses. There are also significant issues for charities. In my constituency, many local charities and community groups receive cash donations and struggle to find a place to bank them. Does he agree that this is an issue for charities, just as much as it is for local businesses?
Ian Lavery
That is a very valid point. My hon. Friend is right: when we look at who suffers as a consequence of these decisions, charities are way up there.
The regulatory framework in place to protect communities has found itself totally lacking, and that has been the case for some time. That is the reason for this debate. My predecessor for the old Wansbeck seat, Denis Murphy, campaigned vigorously alongside local people against the closure of bank branches in both Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Guide Post, but despite overwhelming public support, the banks closed regardless. Both those communities have been without their own banks for more than 25 years. Since 2013, the Financial Conduct Authority has been tasked with regulating banking services, including branch closures.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. Last month, the well-used Chiswick post office in my constituency closed without notice. I met Post Office Ltd yesterday, and it assured me that a service would be restored shortly. Does he agree that this volatility and uncertainty in the market is damaging to both local communities and the reputation of financial institutions?
Ian Lavery
That is massively important. People are told that they can rely on post offices to replace the banks. The vast majority of post offices in our communities are now run by a single person and are not making a profit. They can easily just withdraw the services—it does happen, and it has happened lots of times in my career—leaving the communities without anything whatsoever. That is a really important point, which I will probably touch on later.
In my experience of dealing with branch closures in my constituency, the FCA’s powers to force the banking industry to rectify the consequential difficulties are totally and utterly inadequate.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The fact that there are so many Members in the House this afternoon underlines that this is a very big problem that crosses party political boundaries and all kinds of constituencies. Harwich, Brightlingsea, Manningtree and other places in my constituency are losing their banking facilities. The Government are spending money on trying to revive Harwich high street, but neither the previous Government nor this Government have done anything to secure the banking facilities that are the lifeblood of a high street. I really welcome this debate. I am not sure that post offices are the answer. I think we need to make sure there is a proper bank on every high street.
Ian Lavery
I do agree with that. These problems are happening across communities, regardless of whether we are red, blue, green or yellow—it is happening on every high street. Many of them have lost their banks—they are gone—and it cannot be allowed to continue.
Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the FCA can require banks to consult interested parties to consider the effects of closures and can ask the private sector cash machine operator Link to assess the consequences of closures and to recommend where alternatives such as shared banking hub facilities should be created to fill the gaps.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He mentioned that this problem is happening in every high street across the country, and that is certainly the case in my constituency, where we have seen the almost wholesale withdrawal of banks in West Norwood, Dulwich and Brixton—across the piece, they are closing. Where they close, the banks often say, “We’ll make our services available in a banking hub in the local library,” for example. The service is then poorly advertised and publicised and is not particularly convenient. The banks come along a few months later and say, “We’re closing it because of a lack of demand.” Does he agree that the banks are taking a cynical approach and are failing to provide an adequate service to our constituents?
Ian Lavery
Of course it is a cynical approach. The banks do not want to be on the high street. They do not want to be supporting local communities—the very same communities that have supported the banks through the darkest of times. That is the reality, and that is why this debate is so important. We need more regulation to support people in their communities.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. When the last bank in town closes in communities such as Tenbury Wells and Pershore, it is a cumbersome process for them to qualify for a banking hub. He mentioned the role of the regulator. Does he agree that when the last bank in town closes, a banking hub ought to be provided automatically?
Ian Lavery
There is definitely room for discussion in that respect. We have got to make sure that people have financial services on the high street. It is pretty simple.
Link assesses the consequences of bank closures, but its objectives are directed by the FCA requirements, and basically, it can only assess a community based on access to cash—nothing else. No other social discussions take place; it is just based on access to cash.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Eltham, our last bank has closed, but because we still have a Nationwide in the town centre, the banks will not consider the option of a banking hub. That needs to change. Does he agree that we need a review of the criteria, so that we can have a chance of getting the banks at least to co-operate in a banking hub? They should not rely on Nationwide.
Ian Lavery
I of course agree: the criteria laid down by the Government, the banks, the FCA and Link need to be utterly overhauled to represent people in our communities. I will come on to some of the points that my hon. Friend raises.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
All of us in this House share the concern that the disabled and the vulnerable are losing access not just to cash, but to services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time we asked the Government to ensure that the FCA reviews its guidelines on this?
Ian Lavery
My ask will be a bit stronger than that. I might get my backside kicked, but hey, it will not be the first time. I will ask the Government to insist on legislation that changes the structures to what we are all crying out for. It will not cost the Government a ha’penny to provide services to the people who actually need them.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The number of banks that have left my constituency has driven me mad: in the 336 square miles of Mid Buckinghamshire, only one high street bank is left standing. One of the most absurd things that I have heard multiple banks say over the years is: “Oh, but there’s a bank just a few miles away.” That might be technically true on Google Maps, but to pick somewhere close to my constituency entirely at random—I see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in her place—in High Wycombe it takes an enormous amount of time compared with how it looks on Google Maps to get into the town centre and back again. If one bit of the criteria needs to change, it is that banks should not be able just to say, “Oh, there’s a bank a few miles away.” They need to look at the time it takes in real life to get from a village to a nearby town.
Ian Lavery
It feels really strange to agree with so many Conservative Members—it does not make me terribly comfortable, but it shows the power of the argument and, importantly, the support that it has across the House, which is relatively rare. The number of interventions that I have taken has meant that lots of the points in my speech have already been made. I will try to be as quick as possible.
Link does a decent job under the criteria that have been set, which really need to be changed. Link can pause a bank closure but cannot stop one, or set its own timetable for the establishment of banking hubs. Moreover, there is no provision for the FCA to initiate retrospective assessments of the need for banking hubs in areas where banks have left the high street, resulting in banking deserts, many years ago, prior to the 2023 Act.
The Government simply must take a fresh look at this issue and bring forward the necessary legislation to force the banking industry to fulfil its social responsibilities. The customers and communities from whom they have extracted so much profit over the years deserve nothing less. We should not forget that these are the very same banks and financial institutions that we had to bail out in 2008-09 because of their reckless pursuit of ever-increasing profits. They then made fortunes through the quantitative easing that the Bank of England initiated to save the economy after the crash that they caused. They are now abandoning the very taxpayers who bailed them out.
As I mentioned, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of banks on our high streets. In 1986 there were 21,643 bank and building society branches in the UK; by 2024, around 6,800 were left. Clearly, the switch to online banking has had an impact, but even those of us who use online banking sometimes need the certainty that a branch offers. The House of Lords April 2025 report “Closure of bank branches: Impact on rural communities” quotes Sarah Coles, a senior personal finance analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown:
“The closure of bank branches is a vicious circle. The more that close, the more people move online, so there are fewer people relying on high street branches, so more of them close. The pandemic picked up the pace around this ever-decreasing circle, closing more branches temporarily and causing online banking to spike.”
The banks say that fewer people are using branches. If a high street branch closes, people cannot use it, as it is not there any more. Does that not result in an automatic reduction in usage? This is not rocket science. It is a vicious circle, which is why we need change from the Government.
Northumberland, my home county, has lost more than half of its bank branches since 2015. In my constituency of Blyth and Ashington, the large villages have been left without high street banks for more than a quarter of a decade. Blyth, Northumberland’s largest town, will be left without a high street bank in a few months’ time, though a building society will remain—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford).
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The hon. Member has been very generous. He mentions building societies, and the Nationwide problem was mentioned. In Harpenden, the hard work of local campaigners has managed to secure a banking hub, despite our having a Nationwide. Does he agree that local communities need access to a full range of banking services that building societies do not provide, and will he join me in thanking Harpenden town council and especially Derek French, who has campaigned on this issue locally and nationally? Perhaps this could be an example that could help other towns to find out how they could get a banking hub despite having a Nationwide.
Ian Lavery
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I will cover some of those points.
I mentioned Blyth, the biggest town in my constituency. The third largest town in Northumberland, Bedlington, saw its last branch close just last month. From August in my constituency, only Ashington, the county’s third largest town, will have a high street bank, but many will wonder how long that will last. Who is affected by these bank closures? Like any change of this nature, is it not the most vulnerable who find it the most difficult? The FCA’s research in 2019 set out how problematic the requirement to travel bigger distances for banking services was for older people, and provided evidence for the slow uptake of online banking services by older people.
Only last week, my office was contacted by an elderly gentleman from Guide Post. His local bank closed in 2000. He moved to the branch in Bedlington, a few miles away, where he stayed for nigh on 25 years before that closed. Then he moved to the one in Blyth, a few miles further away; that branch is now to be closed, as I mentioned earlier. He is unable to access internet banking, he does not have any family, and he is unable to travel any further distances, whether by using basic transport services or otherwise.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As others have said, the hon. Member has been very generous. His speech is making me think about vulnerable customers, and access to responsible credit for them. Just a couple of weeks ago, the all-party parliamentary group on fair banking had a roundtable. Actually, online banking services do not help those really vulnerable people, where there is a sense of shame in potentially needing small amounts of help and support. Does he agree that that is something else that we, and the Government, need to consider?
Ian Lavery
I fully agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is up to us, in this place, to speak up for those vulnerable people.
We know that the banks profit and make savings from branch closures. In January 2020, a House of Commons Library briefing pointed to the major banks enjoying a 6% decrease in overhead costs through branch closures. In 2024, HSBC reported the highest net profit among the largest UK banks, reaching just under £20 billion; Barclays followed, with around £6.36 billion; and NatWest’s net profit was approximately £4.8 billion. The big four UK banks—Barclays, NatWest, Lloyds and HSBC—are estimated to have made a combined £44.7 billion in profit. They are not hard up, you know —they really are not hard up. That is why it is important that we, as elected representatives, press that point home to Government.
The FCA’s current powers around bank closures have been mentioned two or three times already, and they go to the heart of the issue. Unfortunately, the banks are a law unto themselves. The FCA has no statutory powers to prevent bank closures. It can only seek to influence such decisions through its guidance notes. On branch closures, the FCA guidance requires banks to assess how closures will affect customers, especially those with vulnerabilities, using data on usage trends; consider alternative solutions to customers’ needs, such as free ATMs, post offices and banking hubs; and ensure that customers are given clear information and that they are not misled. Although the FCA cannot stop closures, it can require pauses in branch closures if it is not satisfied that the important matters that I have just mentioned have been considered adequately. Given everything we are talking about, I think that approach fails. Legislative changes are needed to ensure there is much more flexibility in that guidance.
Link is a not-for-profit company that is charged with making access to cash available, largely through ATMs. It can charge for using its ATMs and is allowed to charge more in rural areas. Prior to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the major banks ran a voluntary assessment scheme using Link to carry out research into the effects of planned branch closures. The Act made the Link assessments mandatory but did not significantly widen their scope. The Link assessments analyse the impact of branch closures in terms of access to cash, and outline existing and recommended new alternatives, such as banking hubs.
In Blyth, which is Northumberland’s largest town, the banks ran out of cash over a bank holiday weekend not many weeks ago. Blyth—it is a massive place—did not have any cash. Can you imagine that? It did not have any cash whatsoever simply because the cash machines ran out and the Morrisons supermarket cash machines were inside the closed store. An hon. Member raised the point about having different cash machines in different places, but if people rely on a supermarket for access to cash, perhaps as a last resort, and it closes at 7pm or 8pm, then they do not have any access to cash.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. To expand on his comment about supermarkets, in Wetherby in my constituency, Morrisons has the only cashpoints and they are outside, but they had run out of cash by Saturday lunch time
Ian Lavery
That sounds like the same sort of situation as the one we had in Blyth. There were cash machines outside and inside, but the cash machines outside ran out of cash. There were people knocking on the shop windows asking the people who were filling the shelves to get some money for them from the cash machines inside—how ludicrous is that? How ridiculous!
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising. There is also an issue with cash machines inside shops that may be open for longer, but they are stocked from the shop by the cash received in the premises. There can be cash machines in a shop that have no cash in them, but Link has to take them into account when assessing whether there should be a free-to-use cash machine in a community.
Ian Lavery
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I like bringing school kids into Parliament. Down in one of the corridors there is an ATM that says “Free cash”, and I tell all the kids, “That’s what you get if you are an MP—you can get as much cash as you want from here—it’s free, it’s free!” [Laughter.] And they all ask me if I can get them some cash before they go to their mams. Free cash? There are ATMs where people have to pay a huge percentage to get their own money. That is an issue that I will cover very shortly.
My own experience of dealing with Link saw me almost guaranteed that a banking hub would be delivered in Bedlington just before the election, but on receiving the assessment, no such facility was proposed and instead worried locals were asked to travel to nearby Cramlington to conduct their financial affairs. That is not acceptable. It is correct to say that banking hubs are an innovative solution for high streets left without banking facilities, but Link’s briefing note on banking hubs published on 2 June 2025 says:
“Banking hubs are shared services that enable customers of any of the major high street banks to access basic banking services and advice from community bankers. Hubs are delivered by a bank-owned company called Cash Access UK, and are currently operated by the Post Office.”
The Government have stated that they expect 350 banking hubs to be open by the end of this Parliament. We are well on-track to surpass that figure. Link has already identified a need for 226 banking hubs across the UK, and a similar number of other cash services, such as new deposit services. Over 150 banking hubs are already operational. There is no doubt that that is progress, but we need far more to provide the service that our constituents deserve. The figure of 350 banking hubs might sound impressive, but there are 650 constituencies represented in Parliament. In my constituency alone, banking hubs should be at the heart of the high streets in Ashington, Bedlington, Blyth, Guidepost and Newbiggin- by-the-Sea, but at the current rate, we will need 10 times the amount being talked about by the end of this Parliament. Our high streets have been hollowed out by online and out-of-town shopping.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In West Ealing, in my constituency, we have seen all the banks close over the past decade or so. In fact, the town centre itself has visibly declined, in the way that he alluded to. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s decision to permanently reduce business rates for retail and hospitality businesses and to end the scourge of late payments, along with the 350 banking hubs that he mentions, will help revitalise places like West Ealing?
Ian Lavery
I agree that that will help to revitalise high streets, but the debate this afternoon is about how we assist the people in our communities, mainly the least well off, the disabled and the elderly who simply want a bank to use.
As I mentioned, our high streets have been hollowed out, but we can share some community pride—or indeed some community shame—on this issue. We can start a move towards the former by moving much-needed services, like banking hubs, into the hearts of the communities that we all represent. To do so, we need proper regulation of the banks. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has paid any attention that the banks cannot be allowed to police themselves.
The FCA needs proper teeth and the Financial Services and Marketing Act 2023 should be amended to ensure essential face-to-face services are protected alongside access to cash. During the debate on Lords Amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, before it was enacted, the then shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), said:
“I am disappointed that the amendments will do nothing to protect essential face-to-face services. Analysis published by consumer group Which? found that over half of the UK’s bank and building society branches have closed since January 2015—a shocking rate of about 54 closures each month—which risks excluding millions of people who rely on in-person services for help with opening new accounts, applying for loans, making or receiving payments, and standing orders.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.]
The Labour party is proudly in power, and I am sure that we will address these issues. We are now in government, and it is time to take action. We need to curb the power of the big banks once and for all. We need to start a review into the impact on communities that are losing bank branches. We need to change legislation to ensure that community factors and face-to-face services are considered when a closure is announced. We need to be bold with proposals for banking hubs by directing the funding, which should come from the banks themselves, to create thousands of hubs up and down the UK. It is firmly in the remit of the Government to do just that, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take the cross-party support that we have seen already today and consider the steps to deliver justice to our communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have shy of 30 Members hoping to contribute, so we will have a hard speaking limit of four minutes to begin with.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for his persistence, for securing this debate and for the work he has done and is doing to get banks back on the high street. Perhaps we should be grateful to the bankers, because, by their actions, they are the only group of people less popular than politicians. Unfortunately, in their endeavour to become the most unpopular people in the country, they are doing huge damage to our local communities. To put that in context, since 2010 more than 10,000 banks have closed across the country, and there are now only 3,000 bank branches left open in this country. In fact, we have more chance of finding a Labour voter on a farm than we have of seeing a bank in a rural community.
The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington rightly pointed out that the loss of banking facilities has left vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and the disabled, particularly affected and financially excluded. So too are residents in rural areas, where internet access is poor and unreliable. People struggle to get on to the internet to do transactions or for any customer assistance, yet banks continue to withdraw physical services from their customers. When we walk down most high streets, we see that banks have become cafés, bars and pubs.
I will focus my attention on Tatton and my local high streets, because the scale of the closures there is stark. In Knutsford, we have lost Santander, Barclays, NatWest, Lloyds and HSBC since 2018, and only Nationwide building society remains. Knutsford is a prosperous town with more than 1,000 businesses operating locally; there is high demand for banking services, yet they have closed their doors. In Wilmslow, the Royal Bank of Scotland and TSB have closed, with only Halifax and NatWest remaining, which are also going to close. That means that only Santander and Nationwide will remain. In Alderley Edge and Handforth, there are no branches at all, forcing residents to travel long distances.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Like the constituencies of Members across the House, Epping Forest has seen a series of bank closures over the years. Tragically, Lloyds bank has said that later this year it will close its branch in Debden in my constituency. Like the banks in my right hon. Friend’s community, that branch is a lifeline; many people rely on it for face-to-face banking and will struggle to get to other branches. Does she agree that banks such as Lloyds need to rethink and stop those closures, and that the Government and Link need to step in and support high street banking?
Esther McVey
I agree—the lack of banks is a disgrace. Where do people go for their banking needs? The reality is that the banks that are closing have entered into an agreement with businesses and individuals; when they opened their bank account, they opened it with the bank on the high street. The business was there because it expected a certain amount of customer service—that is why they went there in the first place. Face-to-face banking offers confidence, security and efficiency, especially for businesses handing over cash and making significant financial decisions. Without those services, it just will not work.
In 2022, the Federation of Small Businesses found that four in 10 small businesses still relied on cash as a primary payment, and six in 10 needed to make regular cash deposits. I regularly hear from businesses in Tatton that they simply cannot deposit cash or access the basic services needed. Why? Well, that is because 64% of bank branches have closed in the last decade and 65% of cashpoints have gone. That is reducing the ability of businesses to deposit cash in the local area. The shift to online poses risks from technical failures and cyber-attacks. We have heard that through this monopoly and lack of access, there is a squeeze, and commission is being charged for the transactions of these businesses.
Our high streets are at the heart of our communities, but without access to banking services, our high streets, which are already under pressure, have become even harder places to trade, grow and thrive. If we are serious about supporting small businesses and seeing investment on our local high streets and in our town centres, we must stop the decline in banking infrastructure.
Some may argue that closures would be reasonable if banks were losing money and needed to take cost-cutting measures, but that is simply not the case. Banks are not struggling institutions. Last year, HSBC reported nearly $25 billion in post-tax profits. Barclays made $6.4 billion. Lloyds made $4.5 billion. NatWest made $4.8 billion. Those are all eye-watering profits—
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate. Too often, I feel the issues that significantly affect the day-to-day lives of our constituents are pushed aside in favour of larger, headline-grabbing national concerns, but this topic of access to banking services—more specifically, access to cash—deserves far greater attention than it receives.
While colleagues here will be familiar with my No. 1 concern on the Isle of Wight—ferry connectivity—another issue came up repeatedly during the ’24 general election: high street bank closures. What struck me most was just how deeply that issue resonates with people. Many of the residents I have spoken with feel very abandoned by the institutions they once trusted with their life savings. They are expected to navigate an increasingly digital world, often without the necessary tools, skills or support. The result is a growing sense of exclusion and frustration, which is why the need for reliable, in-person banking services is not just important, but urgent. That is why I am pleased to report a positive development following a meeting with Link last month: a banking hub has opened in East Cowes, with plans for a permanent hub in West Cowes. While I do not claim that that hub alone solves the broader issue of financial inclusion on the island, it is a welcome and tangible step in the right direction.
However, we cannot ignore this trend and the anxiety that it causes our constituents. Across the country, rural and coastal communities are seeing their bank branches vanish from the high street. In many cases, residents must travel miles, sometimes without reliable transport, just to deposit a cheque. [Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was getting overexcited. According to the Financial Conduct Authority, around 1.1 million adults in the UK are unbanked. That is 1.1 million people without access to basic banking facilities—something that many of us take entirely for granted. Additionally, one in 10 adults have no cash savings whatsoever. Those figures should concern us all.
I worry especially for the older members of our communities. A 2023 report from Age UK found that three in four accountholders aged 65 and over would prefer to carry out at least one banking transaction at a branch. Those are not people resisting change for the sake of it: they are individuals who genuinely rely on physical, face-to-face interactions for their financial wellbeing. They are disproportionately concentrated in rural constituencies such as mine, where the proportion of residents over the age of 65 is nearly 10% higher than the national average. It is imperative that we do not leave those individuals behind.
This is not simply about preserving social interaction for its own sake: we are talking about people’s livelihoods—their savings, pensions and financial security. It is entirely reasonable for individuals to want the reassurance of speaking to a real person, face to face, when managing something as vital as their money. That is where banking hubs come in. These shared facilities provide a practical, community-focused solution. They combine the services of multiple banks in a single accessible location, supported by the post office network. They are staffed by real people who can help with deposits, withdrawals, and even financial guidance. Banking hubs are not just a stopgap; they are a forward-thinking solution that helps us bridge the digital divide, support more small businesses and charities that still rely heavily on cash, and maintain community cohesion in towns and villages that increasingly feel cut off.
All of this has reinforced my belief that banking hubs are not just a temporary fix; they could very well be a long-term solution, restoring vital financial services in the areas where they are needed most. Let us ensure that no community—whether rural, coastal or urban—is denied access to the essential services its people need to live with financial freedom. I thank Link and Cash Access UK for their work.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for bringing this debate on banking before the House. I think bank closures affect every single constituency and every single person in the country, as we will hear throughout this debate.
The final two banks in the town of Wetherby closed literally last month, but we were lucky, in the sense that we knew those closures were coming. I was working with the banks to get a banking hub in for a couple of years, and it has been in place in the town hall. This has given a huge advantage to the town of Wetherby, because the banks that had closed in the past are now represented again in that banking hub. Now that those last two branches have closed, the hub is going to take up residence in one of those ex-banks. That goes to show that if we can get a banking hub, we have the ability to bring things back to the community. The banks that have closed will have a representative in there on different days of the week, and as the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington pointed out, it is vital that people are able to have that face-to-face interaction.
However, in other towns in my constituency—such as Boroughbridge and Tadcaster, which have a huge number of businesses—there is no banking, and there is no banking hub. The residents of those towns have been told that they are close enough to go to other areas, but as has been pointed out, that is not always the easiest thing to do. Then we come to Easingwold, at the further end of my constituency. Nationwide, with its policy of not shutting banks, still has its branch open, so Easingwold does not qualify for a banking hub. People are told that they have to go to Thirsk, a major town that is not easy to get to.
As the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington outlined, there is a problem with the excuse that not enough people are using branches and therefore the banks shut them down. When branches have been shut down in the past and I ask the banks, “Can you please reconsider this?”, they say, “Well, we only had a few people come in last week—we cannot keep it open,” but they never actually do anything to encourage people to go to those branches. They never give an indication that the branch may be shut, and then they just shut it. Of course, people then miss the service, and the banks say, “There is one close by in another area.” As has been described, people are being charged to withdraw their money from a cash machine. As the hon. Gentleman said about free cash, it is their money to start with, but when banks tell people that they have to get a bus to go to the bank, they are also charging people to get their money out. Everything we are discussing passes on the cost from the banks to the consumer, just to get their money out.
I am lucky that I have a banking hub in my constituency. Other towns are going to need them—they do bring advantages—but the way that the whole high street industry of banking is operating is causing huge disadvantages to people. Ultimately, it is constantly charging them to get their own money out.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Cash is still alive and well, and for some, access to it is still a necessity—indeed, last year £80 billion in cash was withdrawn from the Link network. However, with the rise and rise of internet banking and contactless payments, we have seen a near-complete withdrawal of bank branches from certain parts of the country. As has been mentioned, there were 10,000 branches 10 years ago; now, there are just 3,000. One of those closures was the NatWest bank in Bakewell, in February 2024. It was not just the last bank in Bakewell; it was the last bank in the entire Peak District national park. In a few weeks’ time, when the Lloyds bank in Ashbourne closes, there will be no banks in the entire Derbyshire Dales constituency—an area of nearly 400 square miles.
There are many reasons why people need access to cash, all of which are ably demonstrated by the magnificent market town of Bakewell. Of course, there are residents there on low incomes or benefits, who find it much easier to budget using cash and are less likely to have access to the internet. There is an ageing population there who simply will not want to change, or do not trust the technology. We have had elderly residents taking two-hour round trips on the bus simply to withdraw cash from what was their new nearest bank, rather than use the ATMs in Bakewell. There are several successful markets each week; the traders will all have electronic card readers to take payments with, but despite what the mobile networks may say, people struggle to get a signal in Bakewell and traders often have to ask shoppers to pay in cash. There are also numerous independent shops that serve Bakewell’s 6 million visitors. Those shops need cash to run, and when they queued up for cash at the post office they found that they were being rationed, as it simply could not cope with the demand.
Despite all its attributes, Bakewell was turned down for a banking hub the first time around. When I was elected, I went back to Link, which does the assessments and makes the decisions on banking hubs. Over the course of several conversations, I tried to understand what had been missed the first time around. I have to say that Link was very responsive, and after we had submitted another application following a slight relaxation of its criteria on population size, its representatives were happy to come back to Bakewell. I took them to the agricultural business centre to see the livestock markets, where the auctioneers demonstrated to them the staggering number of transactions taking place using cheques. This, I am glad to say, seemed to be the missing part of the puzzle. Back in December, we were told that we had been given a full counter service banking hub—it was the best Christmas present ever.
The experience in Ashbourne was completely different, showing that one size does not fit all. The process there was seamless: Lloyds announced that it would close, an assessment was done, the criteria were all met, and I liaised with Cash Access UK over timeframes, locations and so on. I am very glad to say that the permanent Ashbourne banking hub will open on 27 June, and it looks like the permanent Bakewell hub will follow towards the end of July. This will continue the excellent work and growing reputation of the temporary Bakewell hub.
A national Cash Access UK report suggests that over 90% of customers believe that banking hubs are extremely important to the community, and the feedback that I get from service users is all positive. The evidence suggests that banking hubs increase footfall and boost the local economy, and I am very relieved that we will shortly have two in the Derbyshire Dales.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now three minutes. I call David Mundell.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will start with my ask of the Minister, which is that the criteria for assessing whether there should be a free-to-use cash machine in a community be reassessed. For example, in my constituency, the Bank of Scotland closed its branch in the community of Moffat on the same day as it closed four other branches. At the moment, Link has to take into account every other cash machine in the vicinity, regardless of whether there is any cash in those machines—often, machines in retail outlets are not fully stocked with cash all the time; they rely on cash coming in through the till to go into the machine—or whether premises are open for 24 hours or are particularly disabled or vulnerable people-friendly. At this moment, we cannot get another cash machine because it has been assessed that the number is sufficient, without any assessment of those cash machines.
The closures I referred to mean that for 75 miles along the M74 motorway, from the border to Hamilton, you will not find a bank branch. When it comes to bank buildings being taken up by others, I have not been as lucky as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey): they are often very large buildings on small high streets, and unless the banks are willing to do something themselves, there are not often other users. The Bank of Scotland previously said that it would allow the Peebles branch that is closing to be for community use, and the community have engaged, so I am disappointed to hear that they find today that a “For sale” sign has appeared outside that branch. I hope that the Bank of Scotland will keep that community access.
My third point is that we need to join up what is happening. The Bank of Scotland in Sanquhar in my constituency is closing. The bank is putting a bank consultant into the community to look after its customers, it says, but that person will not be in the post office that has been designated by Link as the effective banking hub in that community. That person will hold separate meetings in a council office. There just is not joined-up thinking.
My final point is that we talk about post offices when many people do not have a physical post office, but a temporary post office delivered out of the back of a van, which is not capable of providing a banking hub service.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The banks have more or less abandoned my constituency, and it sounds like that is the case for many others. Some 6,500 branches have closed in recent years, as have more than 200 post offices. There are 23 separate settlements in my constituency with no access to banking. We do have banking hubs. It is an hour each way by bus to get to one, and it costs at least six quid to get there and back. I represent large numbers of people living in poverty, and it is hard for them to raise that kind of money just to have access to banking services.
I will make two other points about my constituency and then a general point. The bus services are very poor. As I have just said, it can take an hour each way to get to the banking hub, and the banking hub does not provide all the services that a bank should provide.
My other point about my constituency is that there are 15 zones for the internet, and 11 of those 15 zones are among the worst for internet provision in the country. How on earth is someone supposed to access banking on an internet system that is simply not working? It shows the extent to which Britain’s infrastructure is creaking, and it is not acceptable that banks should abandon the people who helped to create them in the first place.
I will just make this final point about mobility and accessibility. One in four households in my constituency has no access at all to a vehicle. That is more than 20,000 people without a van or a car to get them to a bank, even if a bank were available. It is a disgrace that the banks have turned their backs on all those people who were their loyal customers for so many years. Businesses that rely on cash and collect cash each day have nowhere to deposit it. People are driving home from their place of work or their business with cash in the boot and nowhere safe to put it. That is a dangerous thing.
It is odd, ideologically, to hear Members from the party of free enterprise and the free market saying, “We have to do something about capitalism withdrawing from communities.” That is what is happening, and that is the nature of capitalism itself. We should just say that the financial sector in this country is worth £17 trillion, which dwarfs our GDP of £2.5 trillion. The banks are worth eight times more than the total output of the whole UK. As we have heard elsewhere, £44 billion of profit has been made by the banks in recent years. It is time we brought the banks to order to serve our communities—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call Helen Morgan. [Interruption.]
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was so absorbed by the debate that I did not hear you call my name. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this debate, which is important.
In my constituency of North Shropshire, there are five market towns, but only one will have a commercial banking branch left after the closure of the NatWest in Market Drayton this year. We find ourselves in a situation of managed decline for rural constituents, with essential services slowly removed bit by bit every year.
Just two months ago, I attended the opening of the Whitchurch banking hub, which is providing a vital service to a town of around 10,000 people that had lost its final bank branch. While that is great news for Whitchurch and the best alternative to a network of commercial banks, we must consider now those market towns that do not meet the criteria set by Link. For example, the lovely, historic, but quite small town of Ellesmere in North Shropshire has a population of around 5,000 people and 90 commercial units. It is a hub for a large rural area and there is no bank and no prospect of getting one, according to Link, because it does not meet the criteria.
Ellesmere still has a post office, which is relied upon by local businesses for cash services. Having been the financial controller of a business in an area served only by a post office, I can tell the House that people need to do more than simply deposit and withdraw cash. Although I was a big fan of Prees post office and village store, if I needed to change the signatory on a bank account or set up a new one, it was a logistical nightmare; if I did not want to post valuable and sensitive documents, it required a half-day trip to a town with a physical branch.
For someone in Ellesmere, the nearest town is Oswestry. To visit an actual bank in person is a 45-minute round trip on public transport. Someone living in the surrounding villages is in a difficult situation. Those residents might also have used their post office at some point, but now those post offices are being systematically closed down. In my constituency, from Knockin to Hadnall and from Weston Rhyn to Shawbury, outreach post offices have been closed in one fell swoop with a couple of weeks’ notice. A Post Office representative sounded surprised recently when they told me that outreach services only available for one hour a week were not well used. It seemed not to have occurred to them that if the post office is only available for a single hour, that might not be terribly convenient.
I have little time left, so I will just say that for places with poor digital access, where many people cannot access online banking, it is essential that we review the criteria that Link uses to assess the need for a banking hub. A medieval market town that has been serving the centre of its community for hundreds and hundreds of years is on its knees because there is no access to banking. It is essential that we get those services back into high streets to revitalise towns such as Ellesmere and Wem as soon as possible.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.
From Farnworth and Kearsley to Walkden and beyond, people across my constituency have seen at first hand the impact of losing high street banks. In Farnworth, for example, last month we saw NatWest on Market Street close on 15 May and Lloyds on the same street close on 28 May. Those were not just buildings, but vital services that people have depended on for decades. In Walkden, we are now set to lose the Halifax branch on Bolton Road. People are telling me that they are worried about how they will manage, especially those who do not bank online. One woman in her late 70s told me:
“I never thought I’d see the day when there wasn’t a single bank left in town.”
A gentleman in his early 70s said he does not feel safe banking online, and must go all the way into Bolton just to do basic transactions. These things are a necessity, not a luxury for them.
The issue is impacting small businesses, too, especially small traders who trade in cash. Some are now forced to drive out of town just to deposit takings. That means lost time, lost footfall and more pressure on our already struggling high streets. That is why I strongly support the idea of banking hubs. They are shared spaces that allow customers from different banks to access services under one roof, with in-person staff available. Under the current rules, Farnworth, which is undergoing a major regeneration, does not qualify for a hub because it has nearby cash machines. A few ATMs do not meet the needs of a whole town; what people need is real, face-to-face advice and service, especially those who are vulnerable or less digitally confident.
The criteria set by the Financial Conduct Authority are far too rigid. They do not take account of the local picture, the age of the population, digital exclusion or public transport access. Millions of people in the UK still rely on cash to budget, and last year alone £80 billion was withdrawn through the Link network. That is £1,400 a person.
In Farnworth, a local petition has been launched calling for a banking hub that properly serves the needs of residents in Farnworth and Kearsley. Will the Minister please review the true impact of branch closures on communities such as mine? Will they reform the criteria for banking hubs so that they reflect real-life need, not just cashpoint numbers, and will they ensure that face-to-face banking is protected not just in principle, but in practice? It is about managing things fairly.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate. In a world dominated by contactless payments and banking apps, it is very easy for some people to live cash-free and seldom visit a bank, but we must not overlook the 3 million to 5 million people who still rely on cash on a daily basis. These consumers are far more likely to be digitally excluded and financially vulnerable.
I recently conducted a cash access survey in my constituency. Some 55% of respondents said that they use cash on a daily basis, and 91% believe the Government should safeguard the acceptance of cash as a valid form of payment. It is vital that access to cash and banking services is protected. It is important for those who use cash, but we must consider the resilience of the wider banking and financial system too. We have recently witnessed a major power outage at Heathrow, as well as large-scale power cuts in Iberia. We are increasingly aware of threats posed by hostile states that want to conduct cyber-attacks to disrupt our national infrastructure, so cash and local banking services must remain accessible to allow society to function in the event of any major disruption. This is a matter of national security.
In Bromsgrove and the villages, we are experiencing the effects of changes in the way that people bank. With the closure of Lloyds and Halifax, Bromsgrove high street will have lost four banks in just three years. Such banks are a lifeline for so many small businesses—particularly those run by independent entrepreneurs—as well as for local residents, who rely on banking services every single day. If we are not careful, Bromsgrove risks becoming a banking desert with an increasingly empty high street. I know that Bromsgrove is not eligible for a formal banking hub, so I call on the Minister to review the true impact of the closure of banks across the country, and to review the criteria that a community has to meet in order for a banking hub to be provided.
In the limited time I have left I want to draw attention to the further decline of high streets and the important role that banks provide in drawing people into their communities. Banks often occupy some of the most prominent, most beautiful and most significant historic buildings. Once they are vacant, they are often left empty, and they become eyesores and further symbols of the deterioration of high streets, which affects so many of the communities that we represent.
I ask the Government to review the criteria for banking hubs, and to focus on serious, long-term business rates reform that will enable high streets to thrive into the future. Collectively, as a House of Commons, we must put pressure on the banking system to ensure that cash access remains a part of our functioning economy, and that as many of our constituents as possible have access to day-to-day retail banking services.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing the debate.
South Norfolk is no stranger to the creeping erosion of our local banking infrastructure. In January this year, Lloyds bank announced that it will close its branch in Wymondham, which is the last high street bank in the town. That leaves only a single branch of the Nationwide building society to serve a growing population of over 17,000. The day after the closure was announced, on 30 January, I secured an emergency meeting with Lloyds bank and made it clear that, without alternative provision, the closure would have serious consequences, especially for small businesses, and the data bears this out. Lloyds bank’s own data shows that Wymondham cashpoint use increased by 17% between 2019 and 2024. That is not a service in decline, but a service in demand. It is absolutely clear that a new banking hub must be up and running before the bank branch closes next March. I am pleased to report that this has now been arranged and that the site is currently being finalised. I will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that Wymondham is not left behind.
However, this issue is not limited to my largest town in South Norfolk. Loddon lost its Barclays bank in 2017, Long Stratton lost its Barclays bank in 2015, and if we are not careful, the story will be repeated across every rural constituency in the country. For rural communities such as mine, access to cash is not a matter of convenience; it is essential. Many of our villages still experience patchy mobile signal and poor internet connectivity, and when card machines go down or wi-fi drops out, it is cash that keeps the local economy going.
We must remember that rural Norfolk has one of the oldest populations in the country. Many residents prefer, or simply need, to manage their money in person. For them, travelling 20 or 30 miles to the nearest bank in Norwich is not going to work. That is why we need to be far more imaginative about how we can ensure that people have access to cash. One idea is to reimagine how we use our post offices and pubs. We all know that pubs are the hubs of our communities in village life, but too many are struggling to stay open. Letting them provide additional services, such as access to cash and postal services, would be a way to keep those hubs of rural village life going.
Community banking should not be something that we fight tooth and nail to preserve; it should be the backbone of a fair and functioning economy. Our rural towns and villages should not be told that their need is out of date or out of scope. I will keep fighting for that in Wymondham, Loddon, Long Stratton and all the villages of South Norfolk, and I know that many of my hon. Friends will be doing the same for their rural communities.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing this debate before us today. I want to make a few comments.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) that access to banking services is a major issue in rural constituencies, but it can also be an issue in urban constituencies. In parts of my constituency, which is wholly urban, some communities have been left without banks. Owing to the way public transport works and its unaffordability in some places, accessing banks can still be hard, even if people live in a community that is part of a city, so we need to make sure that we are looking at this issue as a whole in all the communities affected. Public transport can be a significant issue.
Where capitalism fails, we need market intervention—that is what should happen. We need more market intervention to ensure that there is at least a minimum, if not a universal, banking service. A number of the banks that have closed in my constituency have said, “It’s okay, because people will be able to go to the post office.” However, the post office in Seaton has closed, and we have been fighting for years to get a new post office in the community, but nobody is willing to take it up. That community is left without either of those services, and people have to travel. In common with the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), a significant proportion of my constituents—at least a third—do not have access to a car, and getting around the city and to the bank can be pretty difficult for them.
We have universal service obligations when it comes to broadband and to Royal Mail delivery, but we do not have them when it comes to post office services and banking services, yet cash is incredibly important. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned access to cash, but that is not the only reason we need banking services. There are some things that can only be done in a bank—whether that is businesses depositing the cash that they have taken, people taking cash out of a cash machine, or individuals signing forms to approve a loan or a mortgage. Some of those things can only be done physically in the bank, including things that people need to do only once a year. Someone living in Banff, Aberdeenshire, will have to spend an hour and a half to two hours on public transport to get into the city—a significant length of time. As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said earlier, we are charging people for that privilege. Even though it might be free to withdraw cash, the public transport that they need to take in order to get to a bank is not free.
I urge the Government to look at the minimum services that people need in order to access cash and banking services that are close to them, and that they can access by whatever method of transport they happen to have. Could the Government please take action on this?
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for bringing this really important debate to this House, and I think we speak with one voice on this particular issue. We both represent post-industrial towns, and we can both see the decline of our high streets.
Banks have long been pillars of our high street in supporting local businesses, sustaining jobs, and driving regional growth and economic stability. In an increasingly digital age of contactless payments and banking apps, it is easy to underestimate the value of physical bank branches in our town centres. With the ongoing closure of trusted high street banks, many communities are being left isolated and underserved, so banking hubs can provide vital in-person services, particularly for older residents, those with long-term health conditions and people at risk of economic abuse. I feel that we need to speak further about this subject and I will write to the Minister, because economic abuse and financial inclusion are really big issues.
Organisations such as Link play a key role in supporting the transition to a digital economy, having committed to ensuring 98% of people have reasonable access to free cash services. However, this commitment does not go far enough for areas such as Atherton and Golborne—two places with ageing populations, active local businesses and expanding communities. In Golborne, 18.6% of residents are over 65, the second-highest area in the Wigan borough. Atherton, with a busy train station and a thriving night-time economy, still has no remaining bank. Significant housing developments in both areas are further increasing demand for financial services, yet the infrastructure continues to shrink. Atherton residents often travel to Leigh for banking, leaving their own town centre with declining footfall and empty retail units. Although evidence-based proposals for banking hubs have been made, recent Link assessments did not recommend any new cash services in our area, leaving people excluded and unheard. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are reviewing the assessment process to ensure that such communities are properly heard and their needs fully met?
In looking to the future, I urge the Government to consider the inclusion of credit unions, a co-operative model of banking such as the Unify credit union in my constituency, as part of their wider financial inclusion strategy.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
A point that has not yet been made is the importance of credit unions and access to responsible lending. One thing that people can do at a high street bank but cannot do at a banking hub is get a loan, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning credit unions. In my area, Nationwide on the A6 in Hazel Grove has shut, which is having a massive impact on what people can do beyond access to cash.
Jo Platt
I agree with the hon. Member, and Unify credit union in my constituency does give out loans in an ethical way to community organisations and people who are struggling.
Banking hubs are not just about financial transactions; they are also about sustaining the health, growth and regeneration of our towns. Let us ensure that we are protecting the digitally excluded, supporting the financially vulnerable and doing everything possible to keep our high streets alive.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I start, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) did, with an ask of the Minister. As she will have heard, this issue is apolitical, and we are raising it very much because we care about our communities. Can we increase the flexibility for banking hubs to be rolled out throughout the country? I apologise, because I should really have started by congratulating the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate.
In South West Hertfordshire I have seen the decline of high streets, including a reduction in the number of banking branches. Nationwide, which has been mentioned, deserves credit for proactively retaining its high street presence, which does help my residents and, I am sure, others across the country. In Rickmansworth in my constituency, the local post office manager, Danny, has stepped up and is now managing a banking hub, which allows my residents access to the frontline banking services to which they would not normally have access. I am also working alongside two of my councillors in Abbots Langley—Councillor Vicky Edwards and Councillor Ian Campbell—and I hope the Minister will encourage the powers that be to see that, where there is a real need for communities to have a banking presence, banking hubs are an obvious solution. If we want our high streets to remain viable, we need to encourage people to continue to come down to the high street. Historically, that has meant services such as banking. That will, I hope, increase footfall for our local cafés, hairdressers and all the other services associated with the high street.
We have heard about the 6,300 banks that have closed since 2015. I am a former retailer, and I understand that high streets change, but from a policy perspective, Parliament needs to create the framework that ensures high streets are as we want them to be. If we do not proactively encourage banking hubs to be in the centre of our towns—yes, ATMs are important, but they are typically in places such as out-of-town petrol stations—we are not helping small retailers and convenience stores that rely on emergency purchases of a pint of milk and the like.
I will close, because I am conscious of the time, with a pledge from me—and, I hope, those on my Front Bench—that if the Government step up and say they will increase the flexibility of banking hubs, they will have our support, because cash remains king. We have spoken before about digital exclusion, and it will have a massive impact on a minority of our population if we do not get this right.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.
Access to cash is important, but it is only one part of the story. The closure of bank branches strips communities across our country not just of access to money, but of access to advice and support services that cannot simply be replicated online. It goes further than that. For some elderly residents this is about a sense of community and purpose, such as the weekly trip with friends to interact with others, plan a food shop, go to a supermarket or even visit friends.
I remember when I was a child, when my grandfather was due to make his regular trip to the bank, he would get suited and booted, have a haircut and tell us all proudly that he was off to the bank. It was also the highlight of my week, because I always received a £5 note afterwards.
In my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham, I was pleased to announce only last week that we will be getting a banking hub, following a recent campaign. For clarity, we do have a Nationwide on site at the minute. I have heard directly from residents about how much this means to them. I have received numerous letters describing their struggles when they have not been able to access banking services. Many residents have described long journeys to neighbouring towns, often relying on friends or public transport just to withdraw cash or speak to somebody in person.
Other residents have spoken of the confusion and anxiety caused by using online banking that they neither trusted nor understood. We are talking about people who find themselves in effect locked out of the system simply because they do not use an app or a smartphone. These are real people in our communities, not a small minority. According to Age UK, more than 2.5 million people over 65 have never used the internet, and the access to cash review found that around 10 million UK adults would struggle in a cashless society. Many of them also lack digital literacy or the infrastructure to bank online. This includes people with disabilities, carers, those for whom English is not a first language, and people living on low incomes who cannot afford broadband or mobile data. We should not expect them to adapt to a system that was not designed for them in the first place.
The reality is that high street banks have for some time been taking decisions based on commercial viability rather than community need. I understand that banks are not charities, but the Government do have a responsibility to ensure that no one is cut off from basic services because they are not digital or because they are not profitable. If we want to prevent digital exclusion from becoming a permanent feature of our society, banking hubs must be part of a national strategy. That includes ensuring they are well-promoted, well-resourced and available in all the places of greatest need.
I am pleased that my constituency will benefit from a banking hub, but we need to go further. The criteria need to change, and we must ensure this is based not just on access to cash but, importantly, on the services that banking hubs provide to a community.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is clear that we all care about our constituencies. My constituency of North East Fife is well below the UK average in the statistics on access to cash. The new powers and obligations given to the FCA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 have gone some way towards addressing these problems. It is important to remember that everything happening before was voluntary. We have twice gone through the review process with Link—successfully in Anstruther, but frustratingly not so in Cupar.
The Anstruther banking counter is to some extent a success story. The banks closed and the post office closed, but a review was carried out and recommendations were made for a counter providing cash deposits and withdrawals. However, there were some problems with the process that I hope can be ironed out. The review was requested by a local organisation that had hoped to provide space for the counter, if recommended, knowing that a lot of its customers use cash and there is no nearby ATM, but it was not automatically advised of the outcome of the assessment and found out only after the fact. That meant it did not get the chance to make an input to those making an assessment of possible locations. I myself was not aware of the opening of the hub until I heard incidentally from a local councillor who was involved in the running of the location where the hub opened. If elected representatives and the local media do not know about counters opening, I am very concerned that the public will not know either.
However, the main issue, which many have picked up, is that the cash counter is not a banking hub. Part of the picture, as I understand it, is that we could have more support in Anstruther if someone was willing to take on the post office, but no one wants to, and having met the National Federation of SubPostmasters earlier this year, I can understand why. This is a problem that the Government need to address and I hope the Minister can do so in her remarks. What are the Government doing to make taking on a post office more attractive? They are vital to the success of banking hubs, but also the health of communities more generally.
The other part of the picture, as others have touched on, is that the legislation only requires maintaining access to cash, not banking services. That is a real oversight. I mentioned, in my intervention on the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery)—I congratulate him on securing the debate—that the all-party parliamentary group on fair banking gave us some quite worrying stats on the financial health of household incomes. It is incumbent on banks to help people better manage their finances so that we do not end up with situations where people are in debt. I asked the Minister whether the financial inclusion committee, which she chairs, would look at access to banking services. I hope she will be able to update us on that today.
The last point I want to make, which others have mentioned, is about the challenge around ATMs. We have had a big problem in Leven where, in just the last few weeks, the final bank has closed. We have a Nationwide, but it consistently runs out of money and customers are really showing their frustration. Whether it is more cashpoints or more replenishing of what is already there, something has to be done. The assessments need to take better consideration of what cash usage actually looks like in an area.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing this important debate.
In just the last two years, Bitterne Precinct in my constituency has lost four high street banks and, unfortunately, Nationwide building society. Add to that NatWest in 2023, and now Halifax and Lloyds both close next Monday. These closures are leaving a community which, by Link’s own assessment, counts 32,000 people among it with no branch banking provision at all.
We all recognise that technology has changed the way we bank, and mostly for the better, but it is not always a substitute for in-person services. People still need to deposit cash, sort out complex issues, or just get advice from another human being. For too many, this is not about convenience; it ends up with them being cut off.
Let me share some words from my constituents I spoke to in the precinct. Kayley, a former bank worker in Thornhill, told me:
“Some customers are unable to access online banking…visiting the bank is their only human interaction that day. Face-to-face service is imperative.”
Mandy from Bitterne described how her elderly, blind mother broke down in tears when she learned her local branch would be closing. Mandy said:
“Banking in Bitterne gave her a lifeline. It kept her independence. She doesn’t bank online because she can’t see the screen, but she can still walk into Bitterne to manage her affairs.”
Frederick, another resident, highlighted the rising cost of exclusion, and I wonder if we have really counted that in. He said:
“A banking hub would put money in people’s pockets by saving them the cost of taking Ubers or buses just to withdraw cash.”
Link tells us that a post office can be a substitute, but our local post office has no outside cashpoint and it cannot cash certain cheques, so when Halifax and Lloyds close next week there will be no outside cash access in the entire area and no high street banks on the entire eastern side of Southampton.
I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs over the next five years, but I want to be clear that Bitterne should be at the front of that queue. It would not only restore access to banking, but help—others have eloquently made the point—to secure the future of the high street, support local businesses and protect residents from financial isolation.
Hundreds of people have signed my petition to bring a banking hub to Bitterne, and many more have written to me. Like others, I met Link. I have to share my frustration with the House about how the reviews are being conducted. The Link survey suggested that my constituents could quite easily take a bus into Southampton city centre in 12 minutes. That is for the birds. If they do it in the dead of night with no traffic on the road and ignoring the speed limits, then maybe, but it can take up to 90 minutes to do that round trip.
Let us set up the banking hubs to succeed. I ask the Minister: how are we going to achieve that manifesto commitment when we are essentially outsourcing it to Link? Let us invest in solutions that do not leave anyone behind and let us bring banking back to Bitterne.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.
Like so many places across the country, bank branches have closed at an alarming rate in my constituency. Not so long ago, residents could pop down to a branch of every major high street bank in the towns of Waltham Cross, Cheshunt and Hoddesdon. Just last week, Halifax became the latest bank branch to shut its doors in Waltham Cross, while in Hoddesdon the former site of the Barclays remains empty, a scar on an otherwise vibrant town centre. In my town of Cheshunt, a town of 40,000 people, not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right.
The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving people of access to vital services. For so many older and vulnerable people, it is causing huge difficulty and frustration, as they are forced to rely on digital services such as apps and smartphones.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I particularly wish to draw his attention to the plight of blind people. Royal National Institute of Blind People research in 2023 found that 28% of blind and partially sighted people never used the internet, they struggle with ATMs, and they struggle too with travel to banks.
Lewis Cocking
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is really important that we expand the rules to get banking hubs in more locations across the country. Not least of all, my nan does not do online banking. Every time I go and see her, she badgers me about it. She will specifically bank with someone where she can have face-to-face services, because she will not do online banking. It is a real struggle, because some banks say, “Well, you’ve got to telephone.” But even then, one has to have a smartphone to get a code on the app for security, so it is very difficult for our older and disabled constituents to access those vital services.
When Barclays went from the high street in Hoddesdon, it did a “Barclays local”. Through the good work of my Conservative-run Broxbourne council, we managed to get it into the Spotlight, our local theatre, but it is cashless. That is nonsense! Its bread and butter business as a high street bank is to deal with cash and get people access to its cash and banking services, but it wants to run a service that is now cashless. We tried in Cheshunt—as I said, a town of 40,000 people with no banking services—to get the NatWest banking van at the car park of our Laura Trott sports centre, but again it would only offer a cashless service. This is bread and butter to the high street banks. They should accept cash and we should bring forward legislation to ensure that our constituents across the country have access to banking services. We need to look at the rules, because waiting until the last bank is in our high street does not promote consumer choice or solve people’s banking and access to cash needs.
On buses, my constituents are lucky if the bus even turns up—we get one bus once an hour—so including public transport in analysis of banking hub locations is unreliable. We need to widen the criteria to enable more banking hubs to be opened up across the country.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing such an important debate.
Next week, the Lloyds and Halifax branches in Welwyn Garden City will close their doors to customers for the last time. In Hatfield, we have already lost every bank branch from White Lion Square in the centre of town. As we have heard today, this is a wearily familiar story in communities across the country.
Regrettably, I must start by sharing my experience with Lloyds Banking Group. On its website, it talks of a
“commitment to putting customers first”.
I am afraid my experience, on behalf of residents in Welwyn Garden City, left me feeling that we were just another cog in the corporate wheel. Earlier this year, my office was informed of the closure of Lloyds and Halifax in Welwyn Garden City barely an hour before they hit send on the press release. The management did respond to my firmly worded letter demanding a meeting, and, in person, I made it clear that if the closure could not be overturned, I wanted to work together on a bespoke option for a community banking service. I suggested Welwyn Garden City library as an appropriate community venue, and said if that option was pursued, there should be no barriers to running a regular service, given the extremely low cost to Lloyds of hiring a room. Lloyds needed frequent chasing to respond afterwards, and eventually came back with its standardised offer: a community banking service in the library, but open just once every fortnight. That is its national policy, so Welwyn Garden City is in no worse or better a position than any of our neighbours, but I am left with the impression that Lloyds was never serious about a bespoke solution for our town. If Lloyds Banking Group is listening or watching today and wants to think again, I will happily take a call as soon as I leave this Chamber.
As other banks and building societies close, it is the role of Government to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs. In Hatfield, we have a temporary banking hub at the post office in White Lion Square, and I know that Cash Access and Welwyn Hatfield borough council are working towards a permanent home. Some people will always want to have face-to-face conversations about their finances. The hub model is here to stay—a service underpinned by the state, via the Post Office, which we need in communities across the country.
I am equally convinced that the way banks and building societies navigate this period of change might lead to customers being increasingly open to switching. I commend Nationwide for its national commitment to keeping branches open, and note with interest that the Current Account Switch Service found last year that nearly 1.2 million Brits switched their current account, with Nationwide the beneficiary of the most net switches.
The challenge for the retail banking industry is to show they take seriously the need to engage with customers who want and need in-person support, and those who succeed might find that doing good is good business. However, where business has a choice to make, Government have an obligation. Let us fast-track our plan for banking hubs and redouble our efforts to ensure that no community is without one.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate.
One of the most meaningful moments I have had so far as a Member of Parliament was hearing the elderly residents of a nearby care home thank me for securing a banking hub in Ystradgynlais. That hub is now open and working, providing an essential service to residents and small businesses, many of whom were previously facing long and expensive journeys just to access basic banking services. The local response has been overwhelmingly positive, with many residents saying that the bringing back of those banking services is the first time they have seen their community restoring services in many years.
The opening of this hub did not happen by chance. I put on the record my thanks to all the staff at Link and the regulator who engaged with us throughout the process. They took the time to understand the community’s cash and banking needs and sought to find a solution. Their involvement was constructive, and I commend them for it. That is how an effective regulator can make life better for ordinary people by reining in corporate greed.
If the Government are looking for ways to win back favour, surely committing to more banking hubs must be one of them. The Government have committed to 350, but in reality, as we have heard, the country needs far more. The demand is there and the model works, but the current framework is far too restrictive. I have submitted applications for new hubs in my constituency in Pontardawe, Brecon, Presteigne and Builth Wells, each of which has a clear case. We need a system that supports those applications, instead of holding them back through outdated rules and artificial limits.
In Brecon, we have one final bank branch remaining. In Hay-on-Wye—a town blessed with a bustling high street and a number of independent businesses—not a single bank remains. Elsewhere in Radnorshire, Presteigne saw its last bank close earlier this year, and Rhayader is troubled by community bankers who do not wish to visit it. In Pontardawe, in the Swansea valley, Lloyds is due to close the final remaining branch later this year citing a lack of footfall, despite queues from the door to the counter. All the while, banks continue to report billions of pounds in annual profits and rising dividends. They say they have no option but to close these branches because of the digital transformation, yet some of them cite statistics showing that up to 50% of their customers still need physical services.
The banks have fundamentally changed their service offering. Who would now deposit their life savings with someone that offers to meet them in a car park once a week? That is what Charlie Nunn, the CEO of Lloyds Banking Group, has done to his customers in Presteigne, Brecon, Ystradgynlais and now Pontardawe. He took home a staggering £5.6 million last year, having closed more than 140 bank branches to save his company some overheads, and managing to bump up the Lloyds dividend by 13%. Does he deserve that? Does he know the misery he has caused people in doing so? Will he stop the closure of the Pontardawe branch, something that more than 500 local residents have called on him to do?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I do not intend to labour too long on rehashing points that have already been made. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it.
It is very clear that access to a physical bank is important for many people in our communities. My constituency, like those of colleagues present, has not been spared the loss of banks. In Lichfield, we have recently lost our Barclays branch, but up the road in Burntwood we have a much more difficult situation: every single bank branch has been closed for a number of years. The community has stepped up, as it so often does in Burntwood, and the post office has filled the breach. There is some access to banking services, but that is not the same as a physical branch.
As I sit and listen to the debate today, I realise that there is one word that sums up the importance of this matter—regeneration. Burntwood has a high street that is almost ready to go. Some businesses are thriving and the footfall is massive, but there is not the investment to make it kick on and become a town centre of which the whole town can be proud.
In Lichfield, where the banks are more present, there is a thriving cafe culture. Although everything is not all sunshine and rainbows in Lichfield and it never will be, we can really see the difference in the two town centres. What we are seeing here is almost an unvirtuous circle, where high streets start to struggle, footfall drops off, banks start to struggle and withdraw, footfall drops further, shops struggle more, and so on. It is a spiral to the bottom.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is becoming an hon. Friend. What happens is that the banks encourage their customers to do things online. You cannot open an account in a branch—where branches still exist—and then say that online banking is replacing face-to-face contact.
Dave Robertson
It is important to say that internet banking is not going away. These two ideas—face-to-face banking and internet banking—should be two sides of the same coin. All our high street banks should recognise that they have a responsibility to both ways of working. I prefer to bank online because I am busy and spend half my life on trains, but there are people who do not have that luxury, as they are technologically reluctant to engage. I hear many people ask the Government, “What can we do to get more banking hubs? What can we do to encourage more physical banks?” That is something that I would support, particularly for towns such as Burntwood, where bringing those banks back could be that spark of regeneration—the thing that starts to reverse that unvirtuous circle, so that it becomes a virtuous circle, where those banks are present and they drive footfall: it is easier to get cash, easier for businesses to bank there and easier for the high street to come back.
We all know that the high street is the physical representation of how people feel the economy is going. One reason people are so worried about the economy is that our high streets have been failing for decades. Governments have not supported high streets for far too long, and I am proud that this Government are saying that they will now do so. Getting banks back on to the high street, where they belong, can be that first step for towns such as Burntwood and the others that we have heard about in today’s debate.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate.
In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, the situation is stark. Although I welcome the fact that we have secured a temporary banking hub in The Shed, in Bordon, on the Hampshire side, it rapidly needs to have a permanent location. In Liphook, there is no banking hub, no agreed plan and no clear process for securing one. Across the border in Surrey, in Haslemere, we are fortunate to have one of the 100 national hubs up and running, but in nearby Farnham, Barclays has just gone and Santander goes next month. All this means that more than 100,000 people across my constituency have not a single bank and only one building society. Constituents are right to be concerned. Link, the UK’s main cash access body, has stated that Santander’s closure will have,
“no significant impact on the community”.
I strongly disagree; it absolutely will. This cannot continue to be a postcode lottery. Banks were once embedded in towns and communities but now they are being erased with little left behind. Banking hubs are a partial answer, but the system needs reforms. The process is slow, the criteria too narrow and the scope of services too limited. Hubs must be located centrally, open five or six days a week, accessible to those with limited mobility and reachable without a car. They should serve both individuals and small businesses and, crucially, offer face-to-face banking, not just cash points and machines.
Bradley Thomas
In a society where collective trust is depleting, does my hon. Friend agree that the presence of face-to-face banking services and banking customers being able to have a direct in-person relationship with real people is one step that we can all take to help rebuild collective trust in the institutions that underpin society?
Gregory Stafford
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a very convincing point. When we are dealing with something as vital as personal finances, it should not be too much to demand to see a person face to face.
The legislation we rely on to manage access to banking, including the Financial Services and Markets Act, remains focused almost exclusively on access to cash, not access to banking services. That distinction matters. Depositing takings, seeking support with financial abuse and getting advice are all services that cannot be delivered by a machine.
Even when residents are confident and willing to bank online, they are often held back by something much simpler: their connection. In many parts of my constituency, mobile coverage and broadband access are so poor that digital banking is unreliable, if not impossible. The digital divide is no longer just a social challenge but a financial one too.
Older people, disabled people, rural residents and small businesses all deserve access to a banking system that works for them, not just for those who are already digitally fluent or living in better-connected areas. That means that physical services, in-person advice and real access to cash must remain part of the infrastructure of modern life.
Will the Minister work with Link, Cash Access UK and local authorities to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs? Will she expand the remit of the Financial Services and Markets Act to protect access to full banking services, not just to cash? Finally, will she meet me to discuss how we can support the roll-out of permanent, accessible banking hubs in Liphook and Farnham? No one should be excluded from essential financial services because of their postcode, their age, or the strength of their wi-fi signal.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate. For five years, I worked as a support worker for children with autism across the north-east, and I have many fond memories of his constituency, in particular Blyth beach. The communities we served there as support workers often had complex needs, and in many ways they were some of the people who were most vulnerable to the digital-by-default approach to public services like banking, which has been one of the excuses for high street bank closures and one of the reasons for public anger at the loss of services.
It was a huge privilege to spend that time working with young people with disabilities, and I learned so much about humanity and community. I also learned about the state’s role as an essential safeguard and why we need to build inclusion and safeguards into planning. Banking is no exception. I have been really encouraged by this Government’s work on banking hubs as a way to mitigate banking closures, but it is clear that far more needs to be done.
While the debate understandably focuses on more rural communities, I echo the comment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that it is a myth that this sort of disenfranchisement is exclusive to rural areas. I have seen the barriers at first hand, whether in my experiences as a care worker or from trying to convince my younger brother to change his behaviour. He has autism, and it is not the easiest thing to try to get him to do something new.
Changes that I and many others take in our stride are profound and insurmountable for some, and I urge my colleagues in Government to be ambitious in fostering more inclusive services. We should set the bar high for inclusive services in this country. While I am a big fan of digital transformation and consider myself to be a tech evangelist, changes cannot and must not come at the expense of people who cannot or choose not to engage.
The issue of high street bank closures in my constituency is keenly felt in Worle. Despite the valiant campaign led by the formidable Jill Leahy to keep the Lloyds open on Worle high street, we could secure only a short stay of execution, and now Worle is without a bank. To compound this, the post office in north Worle closed recently. What is left is a growing sense of frustration among residents, especially older people and those with disabilities, who may not be comfortable with using or able to use online banking for digital payments. For them, face-to-face services are not a preference but a necessity.
Following the campaign by Jill, local campaigners such as Sally Heap have recently been working hard to advocate a banking hub in Worle. We are hoping to be successful in that bid, and I have written to the Minister to put my support behind Sally’s campaign. I urge the Government and financial institutions to listen carefully to constituencies and communities like mine. A new banking hub in Worle would be a lifeline not only to individuals but to the resilience and prosperity of the town. Let us make sure that our high streets have a future and that no one is left behind in the rush to become digital-first, which works for many but leaves some of our most vulnerable in an intolerable situation.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
In the last five years, 11 bank branches have closed in my constituency, leaving most towns without traditional banking facilities. For example, two years ago the closure of Barclays in Chalfont St Peter triggered the assessment for a formal banking hub. While I recognise that alternative provision is now delivered by the post office or in small pop-up locations on an appointment-only basis, those alternatives do not go far enough. They are unable to meet all needs, forcing people to travel further afield to find basic banking services and advice on mortgages and debt—and, as the Minister will be all too aware, asking people to rely on a bus network that is increasingly cutting services.
Link found that Chalfont St Peter did not meet the criteria for a banking hub, yet one in five people there is over the age of 65, and Age UK found that 40% of over-65s with a bank account do not manage their money online. Some of my constituents in more rural areas also face broadband connectivity issues, restricting their access to online banking. My plea to the Minister echoes the calls already stated to review the criteria by which towns are assessed for banking hubs. Accessibility gaps must be considered, including access to broadband, and whether residents have adequate access to not only cash—the current criterion—but in-person banking services.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). It is an honour to speak about the impact of the decline of local bank branches, which is an issue of such importance to my constituents. The closure of the Santander in Rustington is just the latest blow. The need for a robust and fair system of banking hubs is urgent.
High streets have changed beyond recognition. Once, we had Barclays, NatWest and Lloyds on every corner. Now, 6,300 branches have closed since 2015, which is a 64% fall. Cash use may have dropped to 14% of payments, but millions still depend on it, especially the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable. In places like Rustington, entire communities have been left without local banking. Some are forced online against their wishes, even when they cannot afford the technology or cannot physically use it. At the same time, they are increasing their exposure to phishing attacks. My constituent Roger Mallock has lost a life-changing sum of money to cyber-scammers.
Post offices cannot fill the gaps; the queues are longer, and they cannot handle complex banking needs or take large cash deposits. Despite my appeals to Link, Rustington was denied a banking hub. I raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. As one constituent put it:
“Banks are licensed by the Government. Those licences should come with a duty to maintain local branches.”
Consider a Ukrainian couple who came to Bognor Regis under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Thanks to the Santander branch, they opened accounts, and they continue to rely on in-person support due to language barriers; without it, they would lose hours from work and face serious barriers to managing their finances. They are not alone: many elderly and less mobile customers depend on face-to-face services.
Banking hubs offer a limited solution. Only 108 hubs are operational out of the 224 planned, and they can take up to 12 months to open. Worse, the FCA’s rules are too narrow, focused only on cash rather than on broader services. The last Government introduced the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which was a start but does not go far enough. Banking is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. We must ensure that digital innovation does not leave millions behind.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
At the risk of disappointing the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), I rise not entirely to criticise the banks, which have done tremendous work on apps and the like, and many people—not all of them spring chickens—make great use of them. But as banks retreat from bricks and mortar locations, a problem is that even silver surfers who are comfortable with the technology may simply not be able to get the relevant app to work. In rural Dumfries and Galloway, we have too many notspots, where the mobile phone signal is sketchy at best and non-existent at worst. Similarly, there is a lack of decent broadband. The ground truth is that while it might be easy-PC for some to get online, sclerotic broadband and thick stone walls designed to keep out the Scottish damp make too many computers and smartphones expensive placemats.
The need for access to face-to-face banking services remains high, as we have heard. As we have also heard, there are numerous issues with the current banking hub regime. Take Wigtown in my constituency: it is Scotland’s official book town, yet the current banking hub criteria fail to capture the significance of that. Wigtown is evaluated on its modest resident population, with no account taken of the huge influx of visitors when its famous book festival opens its covers. I have a stream of reports of the town centre cash machine running out of spondulicks outwith the festival and anecdotal reports of people gathering for a trip to the nearest hub in Newton Stewart to lift their pensions. That hub is 12 miles distant, and notwithstanding our positively balmy climate in Dumfries and Galloway—no, really—it is not walkable. As for the public transport system, let us just say that we need a calendar and not a stopwatch to time the buses.
When Dalbeattie, the third biggest town in my constituency with a population of more than 4,000 souls and a slew of thriving businesses, struggles to get a banking hub, surely there is a compelling case for lowering the threshold for hubs. I accept that we cannot have an ethos of “wherever two or three are gathered, there shall be a banking hub”, yet equally, we cannot expect one ATM to carry the banking needs of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.
Banking has come on in leaps and bounds since the days of little pens chained to counters and limited opening hours, but on balance, too many people are being left behind in the technological revolution. American banker Felix Rohatyn, who rescued New York from financial disaster, said:
“banking is not simply about profit, but about personal relationships.”
Even in this digital age, we need to capture some of that spirit via our banking hubs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on setting the scene and on his introduction of the issue. As an MP for an area that has been hard hit by the removal of 11 banks, first in rural villages and now increasingly in even the main towns of Strangford, the issue is incredibly important. We need the regulation of access to banking services in legislation and to stop the drain towards online and city-centre banking only.
Millions of people in the UK still rely on cash day to day; in fact, some 1.1 million people in the UK remain unbanked and rely entirely on cash, while more than 8 million adults report that they would struggle to cope in a cashless society. A YouGov survey found that nearly 28% of small businesses use cash at least weekly. The British Retail Consortium has shown a rise in the use of cash for the second year in a row to 20% of transactions in 2023, as more and more people use cash to manage their budgets in a difficult economic environment.
While closing branches, banks have managed to increase their profits by some £2.5 billion. It is clear where their focus is. However, once the banks are closed and the profits are allocated to shareholders, how will they continue to up the profits? What services will be removed next? The percentage of branch closures is lower in larger and medium-sized towns and highest in villages and smaller communities, at 50% and 70% respectively.
Sir John Hayes
That is why the Link criteria need to change, is it not? The trouble is that rural areas are disproportionately damaged by the fact that the population size is not big enough. People cannot get access to banking in The Deepings, Long Sutton, Donington and elsewhere in my constituency. I am sure it is the same in the hon. Gentleman’s.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is replicated not just in his constituency and mine, but probably in those of everyone here today. Those in rural areas are twice as likely as those in urban areas to depend on their local post office branch for cash and banking services. With 11 banks closing and two banking hubs opening, we depend more than ever on the post office. We have credit unions but what we can do with them is very limited, despite being very welcome.
While bank networks decline, the Post Office continues to provide free and convenient access to cash through its branch network. However, the branch in Newtownards in Strangford is set to close—there is potential for that to happen, anyway—and that is absolutely devastating because the range of services that are not available in the local garage, which has a sub-post office, will only grow. Even the Post Office must therefore rethink its obligations.
Through the banking framework that the Post Office has with 30 UK banks and building societies, postmasters support over £3 billion in withdrawals and deposits each month, providing a trusted, convenient face-to-face service at the heart of communities. However, large branches such as the one in Newtownards must be left open if we are truly to have a full service.
According to Age UK, 27% of over-65s and 58% of over-85s rely on face-to-face banking. Nearly a third—31%—of people over the age of 65 said they were “uncomfortable” with the idea of banking online. The age sector must be protected, and the way to do that is to require legislatively a better minimum service from banks and post offices that are trying to fill the gap but are pulling back.
So what do I want? I want banks to be required through legislation that they deliver for their customers. I want to ensure that the post offices, including the main post office, are in place in my constituency and to see opportunities through credit unions. I look to the Minister to outline how the Labour Government will protect access to cash, face-to-face banking and a full-service post office in each area.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It has been a pleasure to be part of the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing it forward. It would normally be customary, with so many contributors, to say that there has been a wide range of views, but I do not actually think there has been. There has been a wide degree of unanimity on the fact that banking services in this country are in crisis. The lack of access to banking for many of our constituents right across the country is leading to social exclusion, limiting entrepreneurship and having a devastating impact on many of our local economies. I have heard from many hon. and right hon. Members that services cannot just be replaced by online banking, particularly for those who have poor digital connections in their constituencies. The difficulty of accessing banking is a massive problem for those who are reliant on public transport, those who are disabled and those who are elderly or have additional needs.
It is good to hear how banking hubs are making up some of the gap that so many communities are experiencing, but clearly there is a lack of banking hubs, and they do not do everything needed to close the gap in accessing cash or loan facilities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
The Liberal Democrats are strong champions of their local communities. We want to see the reversal of the damage caused to our local economies by the lack of access to banking. One of the things I call on the Minister to look at is reversing cuts to the interchange fee paid to ATM providers, which would go a long way to increasing ATM provision in many of our communities. The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington gave a stark example of what happens when cash runs out in certain town centres.
More needs to be done on digital inclusion because, clearly, digital banking will be part of our future banking provision, and for those who struggle to access it, more can be done to assist them. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to consider a fair banking Act to look at this problem in the round, to think about banking exclusion not just for individuals, families and small communities, but for the wider business sector, and to look at what more can be done to connect our communities and businesses.
I will close by adding my praise to Nationwide for its commitment to maintaining banking services on the high street. I was privileged to join my local Nationwide branch in central Richmond just before recess. The branch celebrates 110 years of being on Richmond high street. While I was there, I chatted to the local staff, who generously gave me some of the birthday cake. Many members of the local community were coming in to do their banking face to face. It was clear not only that it was good for my constituents to be able to use that face-to-face service, but that the staff got great satisfaction from helping customers and being that point of contact in the community. Other banks should be making available that sense of satisfaction to more of their staff, and I would like to see more banks making that commitment to community banking.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate.
A great strength of feeling about banks has been evident in this debate, and it is important to remember the importance of banks not just to our communities but to the wider economy. Banks provide services for businesses and individuals, but they also provide two other fundamental services. First, banks and building societies take money from where it has accumulated and distribute it to where it is needed for investment in infrastructure, businesses and jobs. Secondly, banks take overnight deposits and turn them into 25-year mortgages—so that our constituents can create a home and build a family—which is quite difficult for banks to do.
The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington made a couple of important points that I would like to address. The first was about the profits that banks make, and the second was about the policing of banks and the fact that banks apparently police themselves.
Following the 2008 financial crisis, there was obviously a huge number of problems in the banking system. The Financial Services Act 2012 created two regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, both of which—and particularly the PRA—are responsible for making sure that our banking system is sound. Banks need to have strong balance sheets, and to do that they need to make profits to a certain extent. I agree that some of those profits look obscene, and perhaps some banks could put some of that money back into our communities. None the less, if banks spend their money unwisely, we potentially run the risk of another banking crisis.
Along with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), I am one of only two Members left in this House who sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards from 2013 to 2015. Our work on that commission underlines the importance of banks in modern life, about which we have heard so much today. The commission found that holding and operating a bank account is now essential to participate in society and the economy, whether it is receiving wages, paying bills or accessing benefits. But we also found that people’s views on banks are shaped by their direct experiences. The more a person knows their bank, the more likely they are to have confidence in it. That means that if banks want to retain their customers, they must provide good, wide-ranging services. An inability to access banking services risks eroding that trust and confidence, as we have heard today, especially among the most vulnerable.
David Mundell
Does my hon. Friend understand that people are very angry about bank closures, and about the fact they feel that the banks just do not listen to them when they go through some consultation exercise? That is why in Moffat, at 2 pm tomorrow, there will be a protest outside the closing Bank of Scotland.
Mark Garnier
I agree 100%. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Let us be clear that the decline of our high streets and the decline of bank branches have run concurrently as behaviour has changed over the last couple of decades and retail activity has increasingly moved online. Banks are, of course, commercial entities, and their decisions to close branches are often driven by commercial imperatives, which is not necessarily what we want to hear in this debate. Falling footfall, the rise of digital banking and the need to be cost-effective are just some of those reasons.
As we have heard so often, there are now just 3,000 bank branches remaining in the UK, and that number is expected to drop even further in coming years. ATM numbers, especially free-to-use machines, have also declined. Only 14% of payments in the UK were made with cash in 2022, and withdrawals from the Link network are down 50% on pre-covid levels.
Sir John Hayes
The clue is in the phrase “banking service”. It is about providing a service to people. As the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said, banks dignify communities too. This is about personal interactions, trust and building relationships. That is what we do when we go into a bank, and we could never do that in the same way online.
Mark Garnier
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about face-to-face relationships, not something done through an app.
Behind the statistics I cited are real people and real communities. The digitally excluded, older people, those in poor health and people with lower financial resilience mostly rely on cash. Small businesses and rural communities are hard hit. The question for Members who want to compel banks to keep branches open is how much digital-first customers should be charged to retain loss-making branches—notwithstanding, of course, that profit question.
Of course, the answer cannot simply be to do nothing and to walk away from our responsibilities to those who are left behind. The previous Government recognised the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in this sector. Through the post office network, we provided a system of free and convenient access to banking services, and the banking framework partnership between the Post Office and over 30 of the UK’s banks and building societies means consumers and businesses can access basic banking services through the post office network. The Post Office now has more branches than all the banks and building societies combined, and according to the Financial Conduct Authority, post office branches make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. The last Government also introduced banking hubs, which we have heard a great deal about.
I am conscious of time, and I do not want to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, so although I have a lot more to say, I think it would be prudent for me to step aside and allow the Minister to face up to the passion about this issue from Members representing their communities.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to thank and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on bringing forward this important debate, which was heavily subscribed across the House. He highlighted the needs of his constituents, particularly the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled. My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), and the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) all stressed the importance of in-person services, particularly for vulnerable constituents.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing banking hubs in their constituencies— in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, two banking hubs are soon to open, as I understand it.
Other Members spoke about their campaigns to secure banking hubs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin)—who is apparently expecting a call from one such bank— and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of access to cash and banking services in rural areas.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Emma Reynolds
I do not have very long left, I am afraid.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly stressed the importance of these services in urban areas as well. I will not go through all of them, but we heard lots of really good speeches on both sides of the House and a surprising degree of consensus, which is not always the case. It is interesting to see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington so closely aligned, which is not something I expected.
Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the last Government legislated to protect reasonable access to cash, giving the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash. The Government recognise that the ability to access cash and in-person banking support remains essential for many, particularly in rural areas and for vulnerable people, which is why we have secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, ensuring that access to face-to-face banking is protected. Over 220 have been agreed, and more than 160 are open.
Banking hubs are a voluntary initiative by banks as part of meeting their access to cash obligations, as legislated for in FSMA. Many Members have asked the Government to demand that Link reviews its assessment procedure, but it is worth reminding colleagues that the process for deciding where hubs are needed is independently determined by Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network. The Government are not minded to review the legislation passed by the previous Government.
A number of Members—including the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who mentioned this to me yesterday as well—talked about ATMs’ lack of reliability. I have done a little bit of work on that, and Link assures me that it takes a hard line with its members over the functionality of ATMs. However, I urge Members to raise these issues with me, so that I can raise them with Link. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I will feed back the concerns that Members have raised today about how Link applies its criteria.
I know that this is not necessarily the conclusion to the speech that Members were hoping for, but we think it is important that local communities have access to cash and banking services, which is why our Government are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Ian Lavery to wind up very briefly.
Ian Lavery
With the leave of the House, I will simply say a very brief thank you to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate, and to everybody who has participated in it. What my hon. Friend the Minister just said is exactly right. I am someone who has been criticised by Opposition Members as a left-wing dinosaur—I wear it as a badge of honour—but that would hardly be said of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). People should recognise that when someone with my politics and someone with her politics absolutely agree with everything that has been said, there is surely something wrong.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance of banking facilities to local communities and expresses concern over the precipitous decline over the past 40 years; notes the change to banking habits through online services; further recognises that, for vulnerable people, face-to-face banking is a vital service and a reduction of branches risks significant financial exclusion; further notes the impact of a loss of physical banking on small businesses through lost productivity and lost footfall; also notes the innovative nature of banking hubs as a solution to a loss of high street banking, but recognises that Financial Conduct Authority rules for their recommendation are too inflexible; and calls on the Government to instigate a review into the impact on communities of bank branch loss and a change to the regulations to ensure communities have appropriate access to banking facilities.
Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
This is a subject in which I might have more than a passing interest.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction.
I have asked for this debate in order to highlight important issues associated with lithium-ion batteries when deployed at grid scale. These installations are known as battery energy storage systems, or BESSs. In particular, I am calling for clear national regulations that could be applied in the same way in every part of the UK. We need legislation, and I hope that this debate will push the Government further along the road to passing it.
The UK has set a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. To achieve that, many wind and solar farms have been constructed and permissions are being sought for many more. I fully support the drive towards renewable energy; the enhanced regulation that I am suggesting today is intended to secure the industry’s future, not to create more obstacles. I think it is perfectly possible to draw up regulations that will not stand in the way of BESS roll-out, and which in the long term could actually save the industry from a wholly avoidable setback in the event of an accident.
BESSs solve the classic question of what to do when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. They provide a number of highly useful functions, including load balancing, peak shaving and energy arbitrage. Above all, they make it practical to meet a much larger percentage of our national energy needs from renewables. However, every energy system carries some kind of risk, and most BESSs currently use lithium-ion battery technology. In the event of an accident—and sooner or later there are always accidents—lithium-ion batteries catch fire in a different way from other materials, in a process known as thermal runaway. It is important to note that most BESSs now rely on lithium iron phosphate or LFP batteries. This chemistry is much more stable than lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC cells, which are common in consumer uses. That means fewer incidents, but those incidents can still be dangerous. In the future, there will undoubtedly be other chemistries, so we need to leave space for innovation.
Thermal runaway generates very high temperatures and requires different firefighting methods. It is usually best not to try to put out the fire, but rather to control the spread. Firefighters also have to contend with severely toxic gas emissions, the risk of an explosion, soil contamination and damage to watercourses. To repeat, I am in no way suggesting that battery energy storage systems are inherently unsafe. The risks they entail may be different from those of traditional systems, but they are perfectly controllable.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the location of many of these sites are in rural areas, which are often served primarily by retained firefighters? They are a long way from where specialist firefighting resources would come from, and that does not seem to be taken into account fully in the planning process.
John Milne
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I agree that such sites can be in remote locations where there are fewer resources. As I will say later in my remarks, fire officer training is very much part of what I am recommending.
There is a strong case for mandating water-based suppression systems, off-gas detection, ventilation systems and thermal runaway mitigation as design conditions. Unfortunately, that is far from the case today. The guidelines for planning approval are imprecise and vary across the devolved nations. Currently, the burden of responsibility falls on individual local authority planning officers who have no specific training or background in lithium-ion technology—and why on earth would they?
For reasons that are hard to understand—perhaps the Minister can explain—fire and rescue services have not been made statutory consultees for planning applications. The current guidance states that applicants are “encouraged to engage” rather than required to do so, but even compulsory consultation is not enough by itself because the fire services themselves do not always have the expertise. Within the last fortnight, Henry Griffin, Suffolk’s deputy chief fire officer asked for fire services to be given new powers, saying:
“I’d like to see a power that is akin to a regulatory order like those for a commercial property, where we would have the power to enforce safety measures on those sites.”
He explained that the fire service is currently just a “contributing partner”, able to give “direction and professional advice”, but not necessarily to require what it might like.
The result is inconsistency, which is destructive both of public trust and of the success of the industry. In my own constituency of Horsham, the local planning authority has rejected a BESS application, while a similar site, just half a mile away, across the border in Mid Sussex, has won approval. Such inconsistencies show alarming parallels with Grenfell. The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at heart it was a failure of regulation. The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, which is exactly what happened. Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology—in that case cladding—was being used at scale for the first time, without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now because the number of BESS applications is expanding exponentially.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to highlight the issues around lithium-ion batteries and thermal runaway; we are all reminded of explosions and fires in Liverpool in 2019 and in Kilwinning, in Scotland, in 2025. He referred to the need for legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but that needs to start here. Is it his intention to ask the Minister to confirm in her response that that will happen, so that the legislation can then fan out to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
John Milne
The hon. Gentleman is better acquainted than I am with the way that devolution works, but yes, I hope that the Minister will be able to set out whatever course of action is required to get to that point.
It is essential that we build battery energy storage sites to proper safety standards so that we do not find ourselves facing the need for a massively more expensive retrofit, with consequences for the entire energy network.
What accidents have there been so far? In September 2020, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool created a significant blast and took 59 hours to extinguish. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service said that the blaze on Carnegie Road
“appears to be the first significant fire of its type to occur within the UK”.
However, this was only a small BESS, with just four containers and a modest 20 MWh output in total.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In common with the hon. Gentleman, I welcome renewable energy. Safety is hugely important. In my constituency there are lots of battery sites that are being placed in pockets around beautiful little villages because there are connections to the national grid. Because of the potential fire hazards and possible toxic run-off into local rivers, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should prioritise brownfield sites as opposed to such pockets around pretty little villages?
John Milne
The issue of site choice is closely associated with grid capacity, so that is a factor. That is why some of these sites are ending up in otherwise somewhat improbable and very un-industrial settings. Rules around the pollution of watercourses are one of the most important measures to be brought in, and a wider discussion of land use is going on that could help with that.
There was another accident in February this year. Essex firefighters dealt with a fire at a BESS project that was still under construction and therefore not even operating at full power. The most serious incident internationally, which caused serious injury, was in McMicken, Arizona in 2019. As a result, America, along with Germany, has some of the most effective BESS protocols in the world, which I think could be copied.
Overall, BESS fires are high risk in their impact but low in incidence. The Faraday Institution estimates that only one in 40 million battery cells will experience failure resulting in fire. That is an exceptionally high standard of safety, but there are millions of batteries, so there will be accidents—and, of course, in a BESS scenario one battery can trigger another. Grenfell was one fire in one building, yet the ramifications continue today. It has left us with the huge cost of retrofitting large numbers of high-rise buildings across the UK built with similar cladding methods. Even a single failure can therefore undermine an entire industry if it turns out to be the result of a systemic mistake in design.
The UK’s regulatory approach to BESS safety relies on performance-based regulations such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Building Regulations 2010. They place the responsibility on the responsible person—the site owner—to ensure that adequate safety measures are in place, but they lack specific provisions tailored to BESSs. Too much reliance is being placed on individual owners to mark their own homework. The National Fire Chiefs Council provides guidance for the fire and rescue services, but that needs to be more comprehensive and updated constantly in line with changes in technology if it is to serve a proper regulatory purpose. On fire response regulation, recent changes to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards suggest a global shift towards mandatory water-based suppression and proactive risk mitigation, but that has not yet been echoed in UK law.
There are also the environmental impacts. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Water Resources Act 1991 provide a general framework for managing environmental impacts but, again, they do not specifically address the challenges posed by BESS fires. Existing regulators do not seem to know whose responsibility this should be. In a recent application for a solar park at Cleve Hill in Kent, which includes battery storage, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero stated that the Health and Safety Commission should be consulted on safety advice, but the HSC itself said that commenting on battery safety management plans was not in its remit. That confusion is not exactly reassuring.
It is important to note that if the batteries themselves are not manufactured in the UK, the Government have limited scope to regulate. However, because batteries are produced under controllable factory conditions, their failure rate is low. The focus of UK regulation should instead be on the processes that can happen in this country, especially the design of the battery containers and the overall site.
I understand from the Electricity Storage Network, which is the industry group for electricity storage in Great Britain, that it is currently talking to officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about a new permitting system. It is also talking to the British Standards Institution about laying down new standards for design and emergency response. However, the Government have responded to all questions from myself and others saying that they consider the present regulatory regime to be “robust”. I am tempted to say that pride comes before a fall.
In the last few weeks, a spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has stated:
“Battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK. We already have high safety standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan.”
That is just too complacent. Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell.
I and others have been asking for action for some time, but so far without success. It feels like the message still is not getting through. It is very concerning that many questions are passed from Department to Department, with no one seeming to be sure exactly whose responsibility it is. Because of inadequate regulation, some BESS units have already been fitted with inappropriate fire suppression techniques, which might actually make the problem worse, but they were installed in good faith by operators looking to do the right thing. Why are the Government so reluctant to act? I hope that the Minister will explain. Perhaps the Government are worried that regulations would slow down the planning process, but I would argue that clearer rules will actually make life easier for planning officers and councillors. Currently, they have to grapple with a complex technical subject for the first time each time—that is too much to ask of non-experts. I further suggest that it would be easier to win public consent if there were more clarity and consistency.
Perhaps the Government fear stifling innovation in a new and rapidly changing industry. I wholly agree that any regulations need to be carefully drafted and have sufficient flexibility. Any guidance needs to cover a number of areas, including the transportation of batteries to the site, design and construction, firefighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning. In the short term, if the Government are—for any reason—still reluctant to regulate, perhaps they could issue clear national guidelines that are capable of being updated annually. Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, which would be likely to insist that any new applications follow such guidelines. As no project can go ahead without insurance, this would be enforcement by the back door.
Grenfell was a wholly predictable tragedy. A similar fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, which killed six people, should have made us understand the risk, but that warning was not heeded and history took its course. We cannot go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be able to see how many are standing. I do not intend to put a formal time limit on, but if Members can keep their contributions below five minutes, everybody will just about squeeze in.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
First of all, I support the fact that there is a debate on this issue, and I support some of the points that the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has just made. It is clear that technology is moving fast, and when it does, it is essential that public authorities move even faster so that we feel properly secure and protected. I do not think we are quite there yet, and it is clear that there are different patterns of operation by public authorities in different parts of the country. We need an overall pattern.
I also agree that we do not want to turn our back on this new technology. It is very important that we continue to transform our energy provision across the country as a whole, but the fact of the matter is that the fires that occur from time to time pose serious problems for fire authorities. Those authorities should take a central role in any national conversation about this matter. Guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council says that at least 1,900 litres of water per minute are needed to try to control a fire once it gets started. That is an incredible amount of water to deliver, and many sites simply cannot deliver it, although they seem to be making progress in some cases.
The Government have said that there have not been many fires, but there have been quite a few. The one in Liverpool that the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned burned for a substantial period of time—59 hours—and there was one in California that lasted for five days. There have been three other fires in the UK this year, and we are only halfway through the year. When the fire authorities are trying to eliminate a fire, it is obviously complex, but it can lead to pollutants going into the ground and into watercourses, which itself is very dangerous. It has been shown that in Liverpool, when the smoke from the fire was sprayed by water, it produced hydrochloric acid that was distributed through the community—obviously, not a very healthy thing to have. Additionally, toxic fumes were created, which travelled a long way.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. He refers to the pollution of watercourses; in my constituency, the salmon fishing industry is hugely important to tourism and the local economy, so that could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Jon Trickett
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and take his point entirely.
Some authorities have suggested that a two-mile radius is needed if a fire starts. People need to keep their windows and doors closed while the fumes are in the air, as there is a risk of children, elderly people and others breathing them in. In my constituency, there are two applications in place, both in beautiful parts of Yorkshire. In Heath, which is regarded as one of the crown jewels of Wakefield, there is a proposal for a large battery storage provision. Hundreds of people objected to it. The chief fire officer said:
“The risks of vapour cloud, thermal runaway and explosion are unfortunately very real and are becoming more common as we see an increase”
in battery storage. He talks about choices being given to the fire authorities, in whether they allow the fire to just burn itself out, with the risk of pollution of the atmosphere, or whether they attempt to tackle it. To control a fire at the site in Heath would require millions of litres of water in a 24-hour period. It is almost impossible to deliver that level of water and, anyway, what happens to the millions of litres of water used to try to eliminate such a fire?
There is a second proposal in Old Snydale, a beautiful village in my constituency. It is a one-road village, and the people who live there work hard or have worked hard. The proposed site will be almost next to the village, and there is no road access or egress. I do not know how the fire engines and other emergency services would get in. The proposal is completely inappropriate, but the two communities of Heath and Old Snydale are sitting there with planning applications in place and the fire officers expressing great worries about the risk of potential fire and how they will control it. Without national guidance and proper regulations that are sensitive to the prospect of fires, our local planning officers are having to reinvent the wheel, as are other planning officers in other authorities. I support the points made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) in introducing this debate.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) not just on securing this debate, but on giving it such a wide-ranging and thoroughly comprehensive introduction. I am sure that many Members would have mentioned many of the areas he discussed in their own way. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I are very good friends, and I know that you have been concerned about battery storage plants near the River Test and potential runaway fires that may lead to pollutants going into the river. As you are in your place, you cannot comment on that, so I thought it important to get that on the record.
The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) was focusing on some of the planning issues, and that is where I want to go, too. When we look at this debate overall, what we are talking about is a lack of statutory guidance. I want to get on the record immediately that this is not a debate of “Forget net zero and forget about renewables.” That is not the debate, and we are not deniers along that road, but there are serious concerns. The leader of my party has raised those concerns and immediately been accused of being anti net zero. We have to take the concerns seriously, because, as the hon. Member for Horsham outlined, there are changes, slowly but surely, in the materials being used. Nickel manganese, for example, has a vaporisation point of 900ºC. These fires can burn easily over 1,000ºC. I want to focus my attention on the fallout.
I had a meeting with some soil scientists, among others, from the University of Leeds at a research facility in my constituency. They are involved in all aspects of farming. I asked about research into potential contamination and fallout and what it could mean for soils if there was a fire. They said no such research had really been done, and I think they had a couple of PhD ideas appear from that. It showed that that work has not been done.
Where have we got to on thermal runaway? As has been outlined, such fires need a huge quantity of water. It is not just about trying to do whatever we can to stop the fire spreading. I read in the International Fire and Safety Journal about using high-pressure water mist at the starting point, monitoring the potential for thermal runaway and trying to cool the batteries before they get to that stage. Equally, if that mist is high pressure enough, it can contain the contaminants around the fire. Again, the science around this issue has to be closely managed. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth has outlined, acids and other things can be created. We have to be careful about the chemistry, but we do not have any statutory guidance for planning authorities. We keep speaking about what we need to do with water, so surely it should be a condition of the planning process that there is a mains water supply to where such incidents are happening.
In my constituency, planning applications for solar farms and battery storage are pouring in. They are being approved and pushed on, but there is no demand for water supply. These applications are for developments in the middle of a rural area, on farmland. Farmers are being offered a golden egg and told, “Sell us your land, and we will develop solar farms and battery storage.” Let me give the example of a planning application for Wetherby services. There were not really any objections or concerns about batteries, but Leeds city council then approved the development of hundreds of houses 600 to 700 metres away. As has been outlined, no one knows how far contamination goes.
There must be a lot more statutory undertaking for planning authorities. I recommend a pause on approving planning applications until we fully understand what mitigation could be put in place for disasters, which unfortunately do happen.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
As the MP for South Cotswolds and an environmental campaigner who has spent decades campaigning for climate action, I would like to raise serious concerns about the unchecked expansion of BESS facilities. Earlier this year, I brought the Climate and Nature Bill to the House because I believe in having a fast, fair and science-led transition away from fossil fuels, but I also believe in doing so properly—safely, transparently and with communities at the heart of the process. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in the case of the proposed Lime Down solar farm in my constituency.
The Lime Down proposal would industrialise over 2,000 acres of rural farmland and introduce a 500 MW battery installation right next to the railway line from London Paddington to south Wales. That is not just a visual or environmental concern, but a serious safety issue. We have already heard a lot about the low risk, but very high consequence, of a fire at such a facility. If such a fire were to break out, the consequences would be devastating for both infrastructure and public safety.
Members have already referred to many examples of fires that have taken place, so I will not repeat them, but I want to emphasise that the location of battery storage facilities is absolutely crucial. Right now, there are no national safety regulations tailored to best technology. There is no requirement for thermal containment, no mandatory fire suppression and no clear guidance for local planners. Under the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill, BESS projects would be removed from national oversight altogether, piling even more responsibility on to under-resourced local authorities. That does not look like thoughtful climate planning; it is a top-down proposal on a massive scale, with too many unanswered questions and too little engagement with the people who live nearby. Despite the obligatory consultations, residents close to Lime Down feel understandably overlooked in a process that should prioritise both safety and consent.
We should look closely at the companies behind Lime Down. The developer, Island Green Power, is now fully owned by Macquarie bank, a global investment firm with a track record that should give us all pause for thought. During its time leading the consortium that ran Thames Water, Macquarie extracted billions in dividends while letting infrastructure crumble and rivers fill with sewage. It is an asset management company. Its job is to make money, and it does it well. It is not a public utilities company. It is not interested in home-grown, community-led energy; it is interested in profit. It is not here to protect the beauty of the British countryside or to invest in long-term sustainability. Its business model is simple: build big, move fast and maximise returns, whatever the cost to people, nature or public trust.
We need a better alternative. Instead of handing vast developments to multinationals with sketchy records, we should be investing in community-owned energy projects—initiatives that are more resilient, more trusted and far better suited to rural areas such as South Cotswolds. Projects such as Westmill Solar and the Low Carbon Hub have shown how communities can lead the way on clean energy, cutting emissions while boosting local economies.
Let us not confuse scale with ambition. Our net zero future should be safe, smart and fair, not shaped by the profit margins of distant shareholders. We can and must do better if we are going to get to net zero without alienating the public and driving them into the arms of campaigners who would do away with the net zero enterprise altogether.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on bringing forward this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it, because this is a matter of considerable concern to the many rural communities in the Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, particularly given the safety risks posed by battery energy storage systems.
Let me be clear from the outset: this is a debate not about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but about—and this is deeply concerning and the House must urgently address it—the real, growing and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages and rural road networks that are ill-equipped to support them.
The most pressing risk, and one that has already led to devastation elsewhere, is the danger of thermal runaway, as others have said. These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented, real-world events. In Merseyside, a fire at a battery site in 2020 caused an explosion that shook nearby homes and required a major emergency services response. In Arizona, a BESS fire led to an explosion that seriously injured eight firefighters, and in Belgium, a BESS fire burned for over a week and forced the evacuation of nearby businesses.
These systems contain highly reactive lithium-ion batteries. When one cell fails—often due to manufacturing defects, overheating or damage—it can cause a chain reaction across the entire installation, releasing toxic gases, generating intense heat and creating a fire that cannot be extinguished with conventional methods. In rural areas, where response times may be slower and firefighting resources more limited, the consequences could be catastrophic.
In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, we are increasingly seeing applications for these industrial-scale storage sites in rural settings near homes, farms, schools, conservation areas, watercourses and rivers. These are often justified in the name of green energy, but residents rightly ask: green for whom and safe for whom? It is not just the risk of fire; the cumulative impact of associated infrastructure—substations, cabling, transformer enclosures —often means miles of narrow rural roads being torn up by heavy goods vehicles, with lasting safety implications. Roads that were never designed for such weight and volume are left with potholes, uneven surfaces and subsidence. For local motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, or schoolchildren walking along rural lanes, this poses a daily and wholly unnecessary danger. I have received multiple reports from parish councils, residents and emergency services who are concerned that the access routes used for construction and maintenance of these sites are not fit for purpose. My constituents in the Claydons and in Little Missenden are at risk from convoys of lorries, with junction visibility reduced, verges destroyed and road surfaces degraded if BESS projects planned for those areas go ahead.
Should an emergency arise at the site itself, one has to ask: would a fire engine or ambulance even be able to reach it safely and quickly? Could the fire service even attempt to deal with such a fire? That is why I am pleased that Buckinghamshire Council rejected a 500 MW site in the Claydons last year. I trust that other speculative developers, such as the one planning a site just outside Little Missenden, will take note and spare my constituents from these unacceptable fire risks and road safety risks.
We must take a more precautionary approach. At the very least, the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of BESS installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments, and restrictions on placing these facilities on or near rural roads. I urge the Government and local planning authorities to take these concerns seriously. Safety must never be sacrificed on the altar of speed or ideology, or the first technology that happens to be on the shelf that day. Our rural communities in particular deserve better protection.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate. Some of the newer Members may not know quite how much I love the geekiest possible debates. I have not had as much time since I became SNP Chief Whip, so I cannot reach the geeky heights managed by the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) in reading the International Fire and Safety Journal. I commend him on that, but I want to bring the debate to another geeky level and talk about the mechanisms by which the Government should take action.
There has been a lot of talk today about planning mechanisms and regulations, but I urge the Government to look at health and safety regulations. I am from Aberdeen and a number of years ago we had the Piper Alpha disaster. The Piper Alpha disaster and the Cullen report that came afterwards resulted in a massive step change in safety. It was a huge, drastic change in how those things worked, with health and safety regulations that apply across the whole of the United Kingdom. Planning, for example, is devolved to Scotland and a lot of environmental rules are the preserve of the Scottish Parliament.
Currently, there are no health and safety rules in this area. The House of Commons Library briefing for this debate states:
“There are no laws that specifically govern the fire safety of battery energy storage systems”.
It also states:
“There are no specific health and safety laws relating to BESSs.”
I have written to the Health and Safety Executive, Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, the city council and the Scottish Government about this issue. I have done a lot around battery energy storage sites. The HSE wrote back to me saying that it is a member of the cross-Government group on battery energy storage, so it is working on that. It has a landing page on its website that brings together some of the regulations of battery energy storage, but most of them were written for the safety of individual batteries rather than for the safety of these storage sites. That, specifically, is what is missing: the health and safety guidance for battery energy storage sites.
A number of Members have spoken about local or UK-wide issues, but across the world there have been 85 fires at battery energy storage sites. That is not a small number or a small percentage. This is a risky business. I do not disagree with those who say that these sites are necessary. We absolutely need them for our energy systems in the future, but they need to be safe. We need regulations in place. We should bring them together, even if it is just the best practice from all different places, to ensure that there is one place where the health and safety guidance is held. I would be even more flexible than having it updated by Parliament. I would give the HSE a level of control over changing and flexing that guidance, should more best practice come through. Again, that would apply across the whole of these islands, and I think that would be the best way forward.
I want to mention two other things. First, an earlier speaker mentioned that we have extreme weather events—once-in-a-generation events—just about every week at the moment. It is really important that we look at both the extreme temperatures and the flooding events that may occur, as flooding events at battery energy storage sites are an issue; whether or not there has been a fire in advance of a water leakage, there could still be concerns.
Secondly, I want to talk about the money. A number of people are looking at these sites with dollar signs in their eyes, thinking, “We can build these things and make a whole lot of money.” Actually, we should be telling the organisations that are creating the battery energy storage sites that they will need to pay for the fire safety assessment, consult the local fire service, and pay for the training of the local fire teams on tackling fires at these sites. I think that would be the most reasonable way forward. We should ask them to pay for that training, because it is those organisations that will be making a huge profit from the sites. It should not just be the public services that have to train up and increase the number of hours that retained firefighters, perhaps, are working. I think that is really important.
I urge the Minister to look at HSE guidance as the method and mechanism for taking this on. I have pushed the Scottish Government to change some of their planning guidance already—particularly around notification of local community councils, for example—but that health and safety guidance is, I think, the key place to take action, make that change and bring it together in one place, so that all our constituents are safer as a result.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing it, and for his comprehensive introduction.
I would like to talk about this issue in the context of rural constituencies such as mine, as many other hon. Members have this afternoon. First, farmland is not just another piece of land, but an irreplaceable national asset. The ability to produce food domestically is a fundamental pillar in our sovereignty and our national economic strength. In recent years, we have witnessed prime agricultural land being converted into sprawling arrays of energy installations with solar farms, and now we have the increasing prevalence of battery energy storage systems appearing in glorious countryside across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is not present, has raised this point comprehensively in the past, as well as safety concerns around battery energy storage systems and the displacement of good agricultural land for energy production.
We are at real risk of displacing this good agricultural land and of energy production facilities becoming, in effect, a new cash crop. These facilities area incredibly lucrative for farmers who feel stretched—it is very difficult for them to make a living in this challenging economic climate. I am pleased to be supporting the new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to protect agricultural land in the long term.
There is another point I would like to highlight beyond those that have been made by many other Members today. We face the exposure of our energy supply chains to foreign countries—countries that may not share our values—and the long-term depletion of our energy resilience if they manage to embed their infrastructure within our national energy infrastructure in the UK.
In Weatheroak in my constituency, we have been battling an energy storage application bang in the heart of north Worcestershire’s green belt. This glorious countryside will be fundamentally changed forever should the application go ahead. I am grateful to Tony Williams, the chairman of Weatheroak residents association, for having written to me on numerous occasions. I have engaged with many local residents who share the concerns that have been raised today, namely around the proximity of such sites to villages and the potential danger should there be an accident or incident whereby one of these sites catches fire and the sparsely dispersed rural fire services are unable to get there. We also have the impact on roads, which has been picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith).
Rural communities across the country are facing a fundamental change in their identities, at the expense of industrial applications that are often granted at ease with little regard to the identity and character of those villages. I know that this is a concern that so many of my constituents share. If I had three asks of the Government, they would be: that they pause the granting of battery energy storage system applications in the first instance; that they consider a minimum radius for the proximity to settlements within which applications can be granted; and that they ensure that fire services across the country are statutory consultees in every case where there is an application for a battery energy storage system of any size.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have come to the Chamber with a pre-prepared speech, but really everything has already been said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this debate. I also want to thank everyone who has contributed—this sounds like a winding-up speech, but it is not. Whereas normally I would email my speech to people who have approached me on an issue, in this case I will just email the whole debate as it is published in Hansard, because so many of the concerns have been addressed, fleshed out and aired.
There are proposals in my constituency, way up in the north of Scotland, to have power lines from Spittal in Caithness to Lochbuie and Beauly in Inverness—it is massive—and there are lots of applications for battery storage systems. It does feel as if the technology is racing way ahead of the statutory authorities of the Scottish and UK Governments and that we are playing catch up. We are being left behind in a cloud of dust, and that worries me enormously. We have heard about the dangers of a battery fire—of thermal runaway. In the north of Scotland, where I represent, we are no strangers to extremely cold weather. Alnaharra in my constituency is always the coldest place in the winter. Cold temperatures can affect the batteries; they can change their lifespan and their mix.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
There is a phenomenon called dendrite, which is a form of crystallisation—especially from lithium—with a tree-like structure. We do not fully understand where it comes from. Does that play into what the hon. Gentleman is saying about trying to understand the stability of battery storage?
Jamie Stone
I, like others, am left in awe by the diligence of the research that has been carried out by the right hon. Member. Yes, that is absolutely correct; we just do not quite know what happens. We have heard that if one battery catches fire, it can ignite fires in other batteries, but I will not go over that again. Where possibly high-risk infrastructure is proposed for a community, we must surely have mitigation. And yes, we should have a complete consultation with the authorities and those responsible. In Caithness, we have only five fire stations, and they do not have enough personnel, let alone faintly enough water, to tackle such a fire. The authorities want to build a battery near the Castle of Mey where the King sometimes stays, but they ain’t got the troops to sort that one out, absolutely not.
I totally endorse what is being said about the Health and Safety Executive. In Scotland it should be HSE, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fire and Rescue Service. I take great heart from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has been saying—thank goodness that this is being taken seriously.
In conclusion, we should not simply forge ahead with this sort of stuff until we know exactly what we are doing. To be helpful, I shall namecheck one person. She is a councillor in the highlands. She is not a member of my party—Members can google her later and find out of which party she is a member. She is called Helen Crawford. She has been bravely standing up saying, “I think we need to have a way of structuring this that takes the communities with us, that does not seem that we are imposing something from on high.” She is referring to batteries, grid improvements and so on. Nobody is saying that they do not believe in getting to net zero, but let us take people with us when we do it.
I drop a little hint to the Minister and the colleagues of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in Edinburgh that there will be a meeting of a large group of community councils on 14 June in Inverness-shire. They are reasonable people, and under Scottish law, a community council is a statutory consultee on planning matters. I would be very grateful if the Minister would take a look at what comes out of that meeting, because I think it will be helpful to both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Let us have renewable energy, but let us get it right.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I rise to speak on the looming crisis facing us in relation to battery energy storage sites. As Members have explained, the sites are beginning to play a larger and larger role in the transition to greener energy sources, but at the moment ideology is winning the day and pragmatism is disappearing.
There is over 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having been approved or in the early stages of the planning process. For context, that is enough power to supply nearly 200 million homes at once, which is almost 10 times as many as we have in the UK.
One of the 1,100 installations that are proposed but not operational is a battery energy storage site just outside of Grendon in South Northamptonshire. It is part of the wider Green Hill solar farm proposal owned by Island Green Power, and I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on that. This proposal exposes how the Government are asleep at the wheel on this issue. The Green Hill BESS is a massive 500 MW site proposed for the edge of the town, just a few hundred metres from the centre and next to the beautiful Grendon lakes and the River Nene. On the border of a site of special scientific interest, the environmental importance and sensitivity of the site cannot be understated. The proposal is likely to come to the local planning authority eventually, which understandably has virtually zero experience in balancing the risks and benefits of a large-capacity BESS.
The Minister for Housing and Planning wrote to me this week after I raised with him several of the significant risks that the site poses to residents and the environment. He said that the current regulatory framework was “appropriate, robust and future-proofed”. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has already alluded to this comment. I am sure all Members will agree that that sounds rather good, but the title of the framework that the Minister spoke so highly of was “Health and Safety Guidance: Guidance for Grid Scale Electrical Energy Storage Systems”. Unfortunately for the Minister, he has exposed exactly what is lacking in our approach to BESSs. Our framework for regulating the design, construction, running and decommissioning of these sites is simply guidance. We have not gripped the potential threats of these sites and attempted to mitigate them.
Thankfully, there are examples of where countries have faced up to the need to recognise the threats. The United States is further along the path of rolling out BESSs than the UK. As we have experienced here, they have faced large-scale fires, explosions, environmental concerns and, understandably, a gap in expertise when it comes to the emergency response to the unique challenges. In response, they realised that guidance did not suffice, so they passed, as the Housing and Planning Minister sort of alluded to, an “appropriate, robust and future-proofed” statutory framework that did simple things. It required co-ordination with local fire services during the planning process. It specified minimum distances from residential buildings. It mandated elevation in flood-prone zones, and it enforced the training of the fire departments and first responders to give them the expertise that they need.
That framework is prescriptive, yes, but when it comes to the health of members of the public—health threatened by these sites in the ways that Members have articulated—we must be prescriptive. If we are not careful, much like a fire at a battery energy storage site, a fire will be lit that we cannot put out, and it will burn and burn. I ask that the Government immediately pause the roll-out of these sites until a proper regulatory framework is in place.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
People in my constituency are worried. They are worried by the constant stream of applications for new battery energy storage systems in and around the villages across the constituency—from Kinver to Swindon, Hinksford, Wombourne, Lower Penn and the edge of Kingswinford. Their worries were not exactly alleviated by the response the Prime Minister gave to my question last month. He did not give the impression that the Government understand residents’ concerns and some of the reasons for those concerns.
Lower Penn in South Staffordshire is a lovely village with a population of just under 1,000, and it felt like pretty much all of them were in the village hall for the public meeting in February. At least seven battery sites have been either approved or proposed in or close to that small village. The same is happening in villages across South Staffordshire. As I have been sitting in the Chamber for this debate, I have received another email from the planning authority inviting me to speak on one these applications, which are coming through at such a rate. That reflects the position across the country.
There are 121 operational battery energy storage systems in the United Kingdom, but over 1,500 more are in the pipeline, so we really are at a tipping point, but the planning and regulatory systems have not yet caught up. That is why we need action.
As has been said, such batteries have a low failure rate, but sometimes they go wrong, just as they do in mobile phones and electric vehicles. That is why airlines tell us we cannot charge our mobile phone battery while we are on a flight, and it is why Parliament has decided that electric vehicles cannot be charged in the underground car park. It is not because the risk is high; it is because the consequences of things going wrong can be catastrophic. Whereas a mobile phone may have a capacity of 15 to 18 watt hours and an electric vehicle battery perhaps 80 to 100 kW hours, the site in Tilbury—the site of the fire earlier this year, which I think the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) referred to—when completed will have a capacity of about 600 MW hours. To put it another way, that site will be the equivalent of 33 million iPhone batteries.
As we see an increase in these sites, we know from basic statistics that there will be more fires on top of those we have already had this year in Tilbury, Cirencester and Aberdeenshire. We therefore need to ensure that our systems are properly adapted and modernised to reflect those risks. The risk of a fire is not only about the potential danger to human life—for both those who may be nearby and the firefighters who are sent to bring those fires under control over what may be 24 or 48 hours —but about our local natural environments.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues is that there is no statutory requirement on prevention methods that may stop us from getting to that disastrous situation in the first place?
Mike Wood
My right hon. Friend is completely right. Part of the problem is that the planning applications that come in are often very vague about exactly what lithium ion-type chemical and technology will be used, because they are often made years in advance, and therefore before the products that will be on a site have been acquired. In those circumstances, it is impossible to assess the risk properly.
When these fires run for 24 or 48 hours and millions of gallons of water are used to bring them under control, the chemical run-off has to go somewhere, and sadly many of these applications—including those in my constituency—are for sites near to our rivers and our canals. For example, in Wombourne and Lower Penn there are plans for two battery energy storage sites to be erected close to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal and the South Staffordshire railway walk.
Not only is the canal a green corridor through our beautiful countryside—an area of outstanding local beauty—but it is close to the historical Bratch locks and Bratch pumping station. It is a popular site for canal users and anglers alike. The consequences of a major fire and the chemical run-off would be devastating for fish stock and other wildlife.
The planning and regulatory systems must catch up with the realities before all the applications are approved and in use, by which time it may be too late. We need the National Fire Chiefs Council to update the guidelines, as well as their assessment of battery energy storage systems. Before that is done, however, we clearly need a minimum distance between battery sites and residential properties. We need the fire service to be made statutory consultees on planning applications for battery energy storage systems. Furthermore, the Government really must go back and make the changes needed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that local authorities and communities have a real and meaningful say on where such systems are and are not installed.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an unpaid director for Reach Community Solar Farm. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate, and on his strong and comprehensive speech supporting the need for regulation. I have been impressed by all the speeches from across the House, as well as by the fact that every single one supported the motion. I hope the Minister has heard that and will urgently take the actions required.
I am proud of the Liberal Democrats’ consistent support for green energy and recognise the need for battery energy storage sites, so I am deeply worried that current practices cause concerns about safety, anger at lack of community involvement and little or no share of the profits coming back to the communities affected. A prime example of those problems is the vast Sunnica solar farm planned in my constituency, stretching through into West Suffolk. Community groups and parish, district and county councils all opposed the development. Their evidence convinced the planning inspector to recommend refusal, but within two weeks of joining the Government, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero granted permission. Now it is down to the local authorities to decide on final details, including the battery energy storage sites for up to 500 MW.
The councils will have 14 working days from receiving details from the developer to consider whether they need further information, to share the application with consultees, to collate any requests for further information and then to return the questions to the developer. They must do that without any clear guidance or regulation on battery safety. They are advised to consult the fire service, and the fire service in turn has no battery safety regulations to refer to, just the guidance issued by the national fire chiefs. It will also be difficult, if not impossible, for meaningful public consultation to be fitted into that timetable.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for local fire services and the Environment Agency to be statutory consultees for BESSs so that they can advise on making the sites safe and on how to manage a fire should one break out. Local communities also need to be consulted, as they know best how the area is used, where the water courses run and what wildlife is present.
Fortunately, as we have heard, BESS fires are rare, but where they occur, they can last for several days. The water used by the firefighters in the Liverpool case combined with the chemicals given off by the batteries to create hydrofluoric acid. Ely and East Cambridgeshire has many interconnected water courses, from drainage ditches through to the River Great Ouse, as well as the internationally important Wicken Fen wetland site and other vital wetland sites. If those became contaminated with hydrofluoric acid, the damage to wildlife, especially in our rare chalk grasslands, would be enormous. We are also the breadbasket of England. Imagine the impact on our farmers and therefore our food supplies, not to mention the impact on the horse racing and horse breeding industries.
Our planning departments need clear regulation and relevant statutory consultees, so that they can ensure that BESSs are installed in the right locations and have the necessary boundaries, run-off catchments and so on to ensure that the fire risk is minimised and that, in the event of fire, people, crops, soils and nature are protected. DEFRA has stated that it will consult in June on integrating BESSs into existing environmental regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know when we can expect the consultation to open. Many BESSs are already operating, more have permission and yet more are applying for permission. Proper regulation and guidance are therefore urgent.
The Liberal Democrats want green energy to replace fossil fuels. Green energy reduces fuel poverty, gives the UK fuel security and is better for the environment. To be successful and reliable, green energy needs battery energy storage sites, but those storage sites must be safe, and that requires Government regulation and guidance and making local fire services and the Environment Agency statutory consultees.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I hope to give a voice to your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the interest in this important subject in Romsey and Southampton North. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate and making such a comprehensive speech. He was even wise enough to quote the fire experts from the county that matters most—by which I obviously mean Suffolk.
The fact that there were such clear themes from Members across the House and across the divides of the House—right and left, net zero enthusiasts and sceptics—shows that we are dealing with an undeniable problem that the Government have not yet gripped. There was a clear consensus across the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), that there is a total absence of regulation with this risky technology. There was also agreement, from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), about the effects of the policy on the countryside, such as on the availability of good farmland and on rural roads, as well as the challenges of fire service response times in the country. The hon. Members for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made the point that BESS fires can have serious effects on our precious rivers.
I also want to single out the speech by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who drew attention to the dodgy finances of a lot of the firms behind a lot of these applications. That is something we need to investigate further. There was broad agreement on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) that these battery sites should not be allowed to go ahead until a proper system of regulation is introduced.
I am afraid that I am going to breach the cross-party love-in by picking up on what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said about ideology. The Government are betting on battery energy storage systems thanks to their ideological aim to decarbonise the entire grid within five years, therefore choosing to depend on unreliable, intermittent and expensive renewables. That is the root cause of the dependence on the technologies we are debating. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) can intervene if he wishes.
It is the consequence of the zeal of the Energy Secretary that we are debating these subjects. Thanks to net zero policy costs, which are relevant more than wholesale gas prices, Britain already has the highest energy costs in Europe. Pushing policy to run faster than technology will allow risks a crisis in the grid and in our economy.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As someone who worked in the energy industry for five years before coming to this place, I would appreciate some honesty in recognising that the applications the hon. Gentleman has just referenced have been in the pipeline for a lot longer than the Labour Government have been in power.
Nick Timothy
The hon. Member will note the enthusiasm and ideological zeal of the Energy Secretary, which began, I think, in his very first week when he came to this House and announced that he was imposing masses of solar farms on parts of the country and, in the case of the solar farm in my constituency, completely disregarding the independent expert examining authority. That is a clear difference between the two Governments we are discussing.
Mass solar is inefficient and produces less power even than wind, which has a higher load factor—between 10% and 11% for solar, between 22% and 28% for onshore wind, and between 30% and 38% for offshore wind. And that is wind, which is unreliable in itself. The comparison worsens next to nuclear, as it would take 8.5 million solar panels, taking up at least 10,000 acres of often top-quality farmland, to produce enough power to match an average reactor. To the surprise of no one, the World Bank says we are one of the countries with the “least generous conditions” for PV. Indeed, we rank higher only than Ireland.
Batteries and solar panels also expose us to dependence on China, which produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels. Many are made with slave labour, and perhaps all contain kill switches controlled by Beijing. While an amendment to the GB Energy Bill was passed to ban the Government’s new quango from using slave-made imports, it does not apply to private sector purchases. So much for ending our dependence on foreign dictatorships and human rights abusers. So much for our energy security.
Giant solar fails even on its own terms, because it is four times more carbon-intensive than wind and nuclear. Apart from biomass, solar is the most polluting of all renewables.
As this debate has shown, there are very real safety concerns about the battery sites that we must address. These battery sites pose a public safety risk that the Government are simply ignoring. With 150 BESS sites already in operation, and with well over 1,000 planning applications in the pipeline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) noted, this needs to be confronted as a matter of urgency. Building these sites and trying to deal with the safety questions later is reckless, expensive and dangerous.
When a fire starts at a BESS site, highly toxic emissions are released into the air. They include chemicals such as hydrogen fluoride, heavy metals and carcinogens, forcing people to stay indoors. These fires do not need oxygen to keep burning, so they can last for weeks. They can be reignited easily, and the health effects of exposure to these gases are a major concern.
Just look at the fire in Liverpool four years ago, which several Members cited. It took 59 hours to put out. In answer to my written questions, the Government have confirmed that no environmental impact assessment has been made of that incident, so no lessons are being learned. And this year we have seen fires at battery sites near Rothienorman in Aberdeenshire, and in East Tilbury in Essex.
I have repeatedly raised fire safety directly with Ministers, but no satisfactory answers have been given. The Government have made no assessment of the adequacy of fire services near battery sites. There is minimal oversight from the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.
The National Fire Chiefs Council recommends a minimum distance of 25 metres between grid-scale batteries and occupied buildings, but it is only guidance and there is no statutory requirement to maintain this distance. As the Liverpool fire proves, a major blaze can affect people over a much wider area anyway.
We need clear involvement from the fire and rescue services in the planning application process for battery sites, looking at concerns around construction, fire safety and retrofitting. Henry Griffin from Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service has described battery sites as an “emerging risk”, saying:
“There can be complications with vapour clouds and fires will last a long time.”
Fire services have no legal power to enforce safety measures on battery sites. We need legislation and residents need a say.
Sunnica is one of the biggest solar and battery farms in the country, as mentioned by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), and it has been imposed on our constituents by the Energy Secretary. Three days after entering office, the Energy Secretary approved the application, overruling the advice of examining authorities and, quite clearly from his answer to my question, he had not read the evidence—breaching his quasi-judicial responsibility.
Sunnica will cover over 2,500 acres of prime agricultural land across West Suffolk and East Cambridgeshire. Three battery sites will be built, and the whole project will actually increase carbon emissions. Sunnica has treated residents with contempt and used consultants who specialise in questionable assessments of the quality of farmland. Sunnica is also located very close to the RAF bases at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, which host the US air force, and many service personnel live in the area. We believe Russia has already targeted those bases with drones recently, and the director general of MI5 says that arson and sabotage are part of the Russian modus operandi in European countries. To approve Sunnica without assessing this very serious danger is grossly negligent.
Rushing towards mass solar and battery farms like this is an act of ideological irresponsibility. It is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) might like to read the handbook on how Parliamentary Private Secretaries should behave. It is not their job to be heard. If he wishes to contribute to a debate on a policy area, perhaps he should resign his position and return to the Back Benches.
Nick Timothy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Ipswich were more confident in his arguments, he might want to stand up and take part.
As I was saying, it is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses. It is bad farming policy because it puts some of our best agricultural land beyond use, and as this debate has shown, it is bad for public safety, because the Government, in their haste and zeal, want to ignore the very serious dangers these batteries bring.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this debate and on his thoughtful and informed speech. I thank all Members for raising this incredibly important issue. Let me reassure them and this House that the Government appreciate all the concerns that have been raised. There is no complacency, and we are taking a responsible approach to the deployment of grid-scale batteries, which are an essential part of delivering clean energy.
We are very clear that increasing the amount of clean, renewable electricity generated, stored and used in the UK will improve our energy security. It will bring down bills for consumers in the long term by reducing our reliance on fossil fuel markets, which are volatile. It will create jobs, and it will tackle the climate and nature crisis, which we must do for future generations. We are committed to delivering clean power by 2030, and it was reassuring to hear support for that ambition from Members across the House, with the disappointing exception of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who has adopted a pretty impressive skill of rewriting history and forgetting his own Government’s shoddy legacy on this.
In the clean power action plan, the Government outlined that 23 GW to 27 GW of grid-scale battery storage could be required by 2030. I understand that many Members here today are concerned that this comes at the expense of health and safety, but let me reassure them that that is absolutely not the case. I acknowledge that there have been a number of incidents at battery sites, in 2025 in particular, and this has raised legitimate concerns. We hear those concerns and understand them, and Members are right to raise them with Government. However, it is incredibly important for me to stress—and reiterate a point that has been made by other Members—that the risks associated with grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well understood, that there are robust measures in place for managing those risks, and that Government are already taking further steps to address some of the issues that have been raised.
James Naish
The Minister knows that I am as passionate about clean, green energy as she is and that flexibility will be key to ensuring cheaper bills for customers, but that is why it is vital that we give the public confidence in systems like BESS. Will she reassure me that the Government recognise that we must give the public confidence, so that we can ramp up the energy infrastructure needed to achieve the targets she has outlined?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will absolutely reassure my hon. Friend. We understand that we must maintain public confidence and that we need a robust framework in place.
Jamie Stone
Fire services are devolved to the Scottish Government. I do not think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) would disagree that co-ordination on this matter between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, so that we are singing off the same hymn sheet, is crucial.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We recognise that there needs to be co-ordination, but first, let me take the framework that is in place. It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. That is simply untrue. The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government are therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed.
I will take each aspect of this matter in turn, beginning with the planning regime. Planning practice guidance encourages battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue services before submitting a planning application, so that the issues relating to siting and location that hon. Members have raised are dealt with before an application is made. I think there is scope to strengthen the process and build on it in order to address some of the issues that have been raised.
Let me come to the crux of the regulatory regime for grid-scale batteries: the health and safety laws, overseen by the Health and Safety Executive. The fundamental principle of health and safety law is that those who create risk are best placed to control it. Operators of grid-scale battery sites are expected to assess the specific situation and implement the necessary control measures. Of particular relevance are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Together, that framework puts in place protections against some of the issues that have been raised, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised—that there is scope to think about how we bring this together in a way that is accessible and enforceable, and ensures that the underlying provision and protections that are baked into legislation are well understood by the sector.
To complement the existing health and safety framework, the Government will consult later this month, to answer the question on the timescale, on whether to include batteries in the environmental permitting regulations, to provide further safeguards and assurances. Environmental permitting will provide for the ongoing inspection of battery sites, giving additional assurance that appropriate mitigations are maintained throughout the project’s life cycle. Critically, the environmental permitting regulations make it an offence to operate a regulated facility without a permit, or in breach of the conditions of that permit. We will consult on the principle and then work with industry, local government and key stakeholders in order to develop the detail. If we get it right, that should go a long way to addressing many of the concerns that have been raised.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
When the Government do the research on mitigation that the Minister talks about, I gently suggest that they lay down in statute the minimum mitigation facilities that will be expected to be satisfied in planning applications. At the moment, there is no statutory outline for what mitigation must be put in place. Inspections are great, but we are not actually inspecting anything from a statutory point of view. I encourage her to ensure that the result of the research is that applicants have it laid out for them what mitigation needs to be in place.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will consult, and work with a host of parties to ensure that we get this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said, we have an interest in ensuring that the public feel complete confidence as we put forward this technology, and as we agree sites across the country.
Let me respond to the specific point that was raised by a number of hon. Members on the proximity to residential areas. It is true that there is no mandated minimum distance between BESS sites and occupied buildings, but the National Fire Chiefs Council guidance recommends a distance of at least 25 metres. We can look at how we can build on that going forward.
The one thing that I hope everyone takes away is that the Government understand the concerns that have been raised, and that Members’ constituents are raising. We believe that there is a clear health and safety framework in place that we can build on, and we are intent on building on it. We will continue to work to strengthen the guidance and processes that are in place so that we can ensure that we have the confidence of the public. We believe that this is a crucial part of how we get to net zero, but as hon. Members have said, we must do it in a way that ensures the safety of the public. That is a priority for us, as it is for all Members of this House.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for her response and all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Wherever we stand on renewable energy, we can all agree that we must have the highest possible safety standards—that is an absolute given.
From the conversations I have had with industry, clear national guidance would be widely welcomed because what we have now is not felt to be sufficient. What industry most wants is clarity, so any rules can be integrated from the start, at the design stage, when the cost impact is minimal. Regulations are clearly a live issue in many constituencies with so many applications across the country, as Members have said. However, everything is progressing in a random and unco-ordinated way. The fact that the Government do not know which Department should answer questions on the subject is revealing.
I am concerned that Parliament does a weaker job of scrutiny on niche subjects like this one because they are so technical. We are currently placing part of that responsibility on the shoulders of local councillors and council officers, who cannot possibly have the relevant expertise. In her remarks, I noticed that the Minister was still using the term “encouraged” in relation to consulting with local fire officers. That is not enough as such consultation should be mandated and I am disappointed not to hear that there will be mandatory consultation, which is what we all want.
I stress again that incidents will be rare, but a single incident can bring down an industry. I hope that the Minister will not make the same mistake that was made over cladding regulations: let us make this a tragedy that never happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction.
Reform of Planning System
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition, alongside a corresponding online petition, signed by hundreds of my constituents in North East Hertfordshire, demanding a planning system that puts people and nature before profit.
The root cause of the housing crisis is the flawed developer-led model that fails to deliver affordable homes and manufactures a false conflict between housing and nature. The Government must put councils back in the driving seat, with the funding and tools to build genuinely affordable homes within sustainable communities. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform the Planning and Infrastructure Bill so it delivers for both workers and wildlife, redefining affordable housing based on local incomes, ensuring developers deliver on their housing promises, protects irreplaceable habitat like Chalk Streams and upholds local democracy in the planning system.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the planning system should put people and nature before profit.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform the Planning and Infrastructure Bill so it delivers for both workers and wildlife, redefining affordable housing based on local incomes, ensuring developers deliver on their housing promises, protects irreplaceable habitat like Chalk Streams and upholds local democracy in the planning system.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003081]
Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a privilege to rise to move this Adjournment debate about applications to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which has come to be known as the ARAP scheme. I intend to raise a deeply troubling case that highlights serious and systemic failings in the operation of ARAP. Those failings have very real and potentially fatal consequences for real human beings who served us, and who are now in fear of their lives. Importantly, I will ask the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), to reconsider the whole process.
The individual to whom I am about to refer played a crucial role in saving British lives during our operations in Afghanistan. He supported our troops and our mission, often at immense personal risk to him and his family, yet it seems that he has been abandoned by us. When we consider that we have given so much to Afghanistan—building a new Government, a new freedom and some democracy—I think the west running away from Afghanistan is an act that shames us all deeply, as is the fact that those who served us and clearly put their lives at risk have been brushed aside. It does not matter who is in power or which Government it is: I say simply that that is—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker—that has given me a few more minutes.
The ARAP scheme was introduced to provide a lifesaving path to safety for Afghan nationals who directly supported the UK’s mission in Afghanistan. At its core, it is a moral and strategic obligation. These individuals risked their lives working for UK forces, and I believe the UK must duly protect them. The Government were right at the time to introduce the scheme, and it is important to acknowledge that it has achieved something. However, in practice, I believe the scheme has fallen dramatically short both morally and logistically. Many eligible Afghans are still stranded under Taliban rule and fearing for their lives, which highlights the failures in the scheme’s execution.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. Waiting for more than three years to hear about the outcome must be absolute torture for those who served in Afghanistan and supported us. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls, I am emailed by people waiting for resettlement through ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme who want updates that I cannot give them. Does he agree that the Minister needs to review the communications given to outstanding applicants to ensure that they are given updates in a timely manner?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Indeed. The hon. Lady is right in raising those points. The fact is that this scheme does not fit the requirement any longer, and I think it is, in many senses, quite brutal and inhumane.
I will deal with a couple of the problems here, then I will deal with a personal case. First, the scheme is utterly slow and bureaucratic. I will say to the Minister from the start that this debate is not party political; it is very much about a scheme that we brought in and that the Government have inherited, and I hope that it can be changed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In the spirit of that remark, I do not wish to ambush the Minister when he speaks with a quote from the Defence Secretary when he was the shadow Defence Secretary, so may I put it on the record now? After a major inquiry by The Independent, Lighthouse Reports and Sky News in November 2023, he was quoted as saying:
“It is extremely worrying to hear that Afghan special forces who were trained and funded by the UK are being denied relocation and left in danger. These reports act as a painful reminder that the government’s failures towards Afghans not only leave families in limbo in Pakistan hotels, but also put Afghan lives at serious threat from the Taliban. Britain’s moral duty to assist these Afghans is felt most fiercely by the UK forces they served alongside. There can be no more excuses.”
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree with those words the Secretary of State for Defence said previously. I hope he was speaking to highlight problems with the Government, as those in opposition must do; I am afraid that my Government did not resolve that issue. At the end of my speech, as the Minister will know, I will pitch to him how things should be different.
The bureaucracy of the scheme is astonishing. Thousands of applications remain unresolved, some of which were submitted as far back as 2021. Many of these people have had to flee and hide with their families, because they risk death—I will come back to a particular case that highlights all that. The long lack of transparency and the long delays have left these individuals in personal and collective danger.
The scheme has narrow and inconsistent eligibility criteria. Individuals who have served alongside UK forces have been excluded due to narrow definitions and specific eligibility categories that rule them out. Others have been denied protection because they were employed by subcontractors rather than the Ministry of Defence, yet they carried out the same vital work and faced the same risks as others who were directly employed.
Then there are the broken promises. The UK Government assured those who served with the British forces that they would not be left behind, yet lives are still at risk. First-hand reports from Afghanistan show that former allies are now being targeted by the Taliban. I did not serve in Afghanistan—I did serve in the British military, a fact of which I was proud—but there are some in this Chamber today who did serve there and who know from first-hand experience what was going on.
Throughout all of this, as I lay out the individual case, there is a very simple theme: we must stand by those who stood by us, because if we do not, we are not worthy of being British or of the freedoms we uphold and fight for. Those who stood by us fought for those freedoms, too; they supported us in those fights, and we cannot abandon them, given the threats they now face. The fact that they are in hiding, fearful for their lives, is an absolute travesty, and the idea that we could have forgotten them should be a badge of shame for any British Government and for the British establishment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that he cannot intervene from the Front Bench in an Adjournment debate.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I hope I can give my right hon. Friend time to get to the Benches behind him, as he may wish to intervene on me. I am sure that he will not be noticed in that movement, swift and ghost-like as he.
I am not going to stretch this out any longer. The individual I will refer to today worked alongside British forces in Afghanistan, providing operational and intelligence support under direct threat from the Taliban. His family and his home were threatened. He served in the national security directorate in Kabul. His work involved sharing critical intelligence with the British special forces and intelligence services in Kabul and, of course, in the wider region. That intelligence undoubtedly saved lives and contributed to the success of key operations. His contributions are simply not in doubt or in question; they are evidenced extensively, including in a powerful testimony from the most senior commander of British forces in Kabul at the time, who is now a general. He personally worked with this individual and has testified to the crucial role he played.
I am not going to name the general at this point, but he says in his letter in support of this individual’s application:
“His daily security briefings covered possible threats and intelligence reports. These reports made a substantive and crucially life-saving contribution not only to the UK’s military and national security objectives with respect to operations in Afghanistan, but also to the day-to-day safety of British troops and civilian British Embassy staff”
and others. He also says that by the very nature of the daily intelligence that this individual was required to share within this high-level forum, the threat to his life and that of his family was unquestionably at an elevated risk from targeted attacks, including a high risk of death or serious injury by the Taliban regime. I would have thought that that alone was powerful enough evidence to say that this individual should be here now, as he is currently in fear for his life in another country nearby.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I did serve in Afghanistan, including with the young major who is now the general that my right hon. and gallant Friend is referring to. He is an outstanding officer with unimpeachable credentials.
My right hon. and gallant Friend is making a compelling moral case. I have seen at first hand the risks that those Afghans who supported us on operations faced alongside us, which only increased exponentially when the Taliban took over. We have a very moral case for doing whatever we have to do to fulfil our obligation, and if that means tearing up someone’s bureaucratic rulebook, so be it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is powerful that my hon. and gallant Friend is here today to support this debate, given his service in Afghanistan. He will understand more than most the threats that were received by these people and how their lives would have been more difficult. He will also know that many would have lost their lives had this sort of intelligence and support not been available from these brave individuals. I am grateful for his intervention.
Despite the overwhelming evidence presented—there was much of it—the application was rejected on all counts and the individual remains at risk. What we got back in the papers that I looked through, which came first to the Minister and then to me, was this:
“the decision maker was unable to satisfy themselves from the evidence provided or that held by the UK Government that his role with National Directorate of Security…was closely supporting or in partnership with a UK Government Department”.
Is that really the best we can do—some bureaucrat stuck away somewhere who does not care, who is not even in the Ministry of Defence and who has no real understanding of what it is like to put one’s life on the line for other people’s safety? All of that evidence is dismissed in the line
“unable to satisfy themselves from the evidence provided”.
I find that astonishing and appalling. I say that not to attack civil servants—many of them are brilliant and do a lot of work—but this process allows someone to make a decision about the life and death of a brave individual without even thinking about the consequences.
This is not just about a bureaucratic error. As I said, the situation is very human; it is literally life and death. We are making a decision today under this scheme to have this individual die. That is pretty much what they are saying. He is a man in hiding, in fear of his life and the lives of his family. I understand that even his closest relation has been arrested and has probably been tortured to find out where he is. We dismiss it with the words that those processing his application were “unable to satisfy themselves”.
By the very nature of the daily intelligence that this individual was required to share, there is a threat to his life and to his family. He has placed himself between us and the Taliban. Records of these meetings were kept and widely publicised, including in public relations-focused photographs showing the individual at meetings attended by the general. This evidence was recorded in Afghan Government systems and in offices now commandeered by the Taliban, who now know what he was doing. It is still easily searchable on the internet today, yet the decision maker was
“unable to satisfy themselves from the evidence provided”
that he was closely supporting or in partnership with the UK. Really?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for giving way on that point. Is this not a case of the old adage that rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools? Are we not seeing a punctilious following of rules here, when a man’s life is at risk?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Indeed, we are. We are elected—that is what makes us different—to this Chamber to take that on and to change it. We are not bound by a bureaucratic process. We have the power here to change anything, and I simply ask: why not do that, when human lives and those who served us are at risk? We must recognise and remember that we are not bureaucrats—we are politicians, and we must feel the pain of others and understand when we need to change. I was concerned that my own Government did not make that change before and, in a way, I am begging the Government to see it differently and to try to do something about it.
More and more ex-military and ex-security forces people are being targeted in Afghanistan. We know that; it is a fact. Executions are taking place all the time, but because we are not there and it is not on the television every day, we put it to one side. We forget that dead British servicemen were clapped through the towns because people recognised their bravery in being out there to help people and to support those who did not want that tyranny back in their country. We supported those servicemen, and we feel strongly for their bravery; why do we not feel the same for those who helped them and who helped many others to stay alive? Surely they are just as valuable to us as any British soldier who was saved by them. That is the cost, and that is the equation.
I simply say to the Minister that according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan’s quarterly human rights update, the Taliban detained at least 23 former Government officials and members of the Afghan national security forces during this period. At least five were subjected to torture or other forms of ill treatment. Many of the arrests took place in Panjshir and Kabul, and were reportedly tied to alleged links to the National Resistance Front.
As I said earlier, I do not believe that this individual case is isolated. It exposes deep systematic failures in the ARAP scheme. The excessive bureaucracy and eligibility criteria are remarkable. The system as it stands is clearly ill equipped to deal with exceptional cases—there are many—such as this one. Most importantly, it fails to offer the necessary protection to those who are now at risk because of their loyalty to the UK and the British forces. As I said earlier, I know there are colleagues on both sides of the House who behave bravely and serve their country, including the Minister’s colleague who sits on the Front Bench.
I will finish my comments with this. Surely we must now change the scheme. We must be generous to those whose generosity with their lives has kept so many British lives safe. I know the restrictions of being at the Dispatch Box, and I know that civil servants will have said to the Minister, “Be very careful. You don’t want to step across this one, and you mustn’t make a pledge that we can’t consider. Don’t let that man put your career in danger.” I think putting our careers in danger is nothing compared with the actions of those who put their lives in danger for us.
I simply ask the Minister to pledge that he will do his utmost, that he will speak to the powers that be, and that he will bang on the door of No. 10 and demand that the Prime Minister take on this case and others personally. While we build up our armed forces, and look to have allies and people who will work with us, they will look back at how we treated those who came before and they will ask themselves, “Why do I serve with people who forget you when the deed is done?” I say to the Minister: let us not forget them. They are as brave and as important to us as the soldiers who were directly employed by us, who served us and who made sure that many were saved as a result.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising this issue, and for presenting his argument in the way that he did. We have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, so he will know that I take responsibility for making sure that we make the correct decisions on ARAP. When I was on the Opposition Front Bench, where the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is now sitting, I raised concerns about the functioning of the ARAP scheme. In office, we have made changes to the scheme to make sure that it functions better, which I will come to. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned communications, and I believe the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) quoted the Secretary of State’s comments on the Triples review, but I will address the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the first instance.
I very much appreciate the right hon. Member’s advocacy for the individual involved, and his passion for Afghan resettlement in general. He is absolutely right to say that we owe an obligation to the people who served alongside UK forces. What we have done with the ARAP scheme is implement as a nation, under the last Government and this one, probably the most generous Afghan relocation scheme of any of the allies that served in Afghanistan, and we have drawn a set of eligibility criteria that—with the exception of the Triples, which I will come to in a moment—have broadly remained the same under this Government and the preceding Government. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about elements of that, which I will seek to address.
As a former Minister, he will know that I will not be able to address the individual circumstances of the case without permission, so I will make some more general remarks in respect of that individual case. However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that we have met previously on this matter, and I very much understand and appreciate his ongoing engagement. I have to be honest with him and say that when he and I first spoke about this case and I was briefed on it, I too was surprised by the decision that was made. That is why I undertook to take it back to the Department and to check on the eligibility of the case, which I did. Having done that, I am confident that the officials have followed the published criteria and applied them correctly to the evidence provided. The decision is appropriate and should stand. I should also be clear that there are no plans to ask to expand the criteria, which were implemented by the previous Government.
I do, however, recognise the context of this particular matter, and I am happy to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge to see whether exceptional routes may be available. I do not want to give him false hope—I am not certain there will be such a route—but having spoken to him previously about this, I know the seriousness of the matter he raises, and I am happy to see whether we could look at additional opportunities to provide support in this case.
When it comes to the published criteria for ARAP, we must be absolutely clear about eligibility, and it is my job as the Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement to make sure that decisions are made correctly against the published eligibility criteria. Where decisions have been made, an individual has access to a review, and where there is a concern over an individual’s security while that review is ongoing—especially circumstances in which the life and safety of that individual are threatened—there is the ability to request an expedited decision.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister’s civil servants will be proud of him. I think the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was making was that when the computer says no and the Minister knows that the computer is wrong, does he not have an obligation simply to go away and change the system?
Luke Pollard
First, I put on record that we have exceptional civil servants working in this area who take the decisions very seriously and make those decisions in full consciousness of their consequences. I am absolutely convinced that we have a good team working on this.
On the point the hon. Member raises, we are making decisions against the published criteria, and it is right to do so. We know that amendments to the published criteria change the eligibility in respect of past cases. We also know that at the moment we have the most generous Afghan resettlement scheme. We have resettled 34,000 eligible persons in the United Kingdom under ARAP and the associated Afghan resettlement schemes, which is more than many of our allies. It is right that we make those decisions against the published criteria, and that we look carefully at them. That is why I undertook to do so in this case, and I have done so.
There is a real challenge, and I entirely understand it. As someone who has advocated for Afghans in my own Plymouth constituency who fell outside the published criteria, which were set in place by the last Government and that we have followed, I have often argued that we should look again at this obligation. I am entirely aware that the majority of my efforts on this have centred on the Triples, who I will come on to, and whether those decisions were made correctly. I will give the House an update on that in a moment.
I want to make sure that decisions are correct according to the published criteria. Those criteria are frequently challenged in the courts, and we have to uphold them to make sure that every decision is valid. Every case is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the information provided following a request for the information held not just by the Ministry of Defence but by other Government Departments and partners across Government, in order to make sure that the decision taken is as appropriate as possible. Individuals who get a decision that is not in their favour also have the ability to provide additional evidence and to have that decision reviewed.
Sir Julian Lewis
I know that the Minister sincerely cares about all of this, and I am sure that he really wants to do his best, however the key point being made by my hon. and right hon. and gallant Friends is that, if the criteria do not cater for a situation in which senior British military personnel give first-person testimony that somebody saved British lives by taking exceptionally courageous steps in our support, the criteria need to be adjusted. That is what should be done, as I hope he is going tell us that it may have been adjusted for the Triples.
Luke Pollard
I entirely understand where the right hon. Gentleman is going with that argument. Under the criteria in the scheme we inherited from the previous Government, which we have continued, we have made the decision, with the exception of the Triples, to keep the eligibility decisions the same.
Let me turn to the Triples, which the right hon. Gentleman raised. I believe that the quote of the Secretary of State when in opposition was in relation to the very concerning situation—I believe it was a concern to him and to me when in opposition—that decisions were made in respect of the Afghan special forces, the Triples, that were inconsistent with the evidence that was being provided. We backed and called for the Triples review, which was initiated by my predecessor in the previous Government. Phase 1 of that review has now completed and we have achieved an overturn rate of around 30%. A written ministerial statement on that was published— I think last month—should the right hon. Gentleman want to refer to the full details.
In that work, we interrogated the data that was available. The record-keeping of that period was not good enough, as I have said from the Dispatch Box a number of times since taking office. As part of that trawl, we discovered information in relation to top-up payments, which previously had been excluded from the criteria because they did not constitute the relationship with the UK Government that would have created eligibility. Our belief is that the way those top-up payments were applied may now constitute a relationship that needs to be re-examined, so phase 2 of the Triples review, which will be the final phase of the review, is looking at top-up payments. It was right to do that, because there was a clear point.
In the case raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I am very happy to try to see what is available to support it. I feel very deeply that we need to honour our obligations to those people who served alongside our forces, from the Afghan translators and interpreters who live in the constituency I represent, to the people who fought, and in some cases died, alongside our forces. The ARAP scheme is a generous scheme, but it was not intended, at its point of initiation or now, to cover all Afghans who fought in that conflict over 20 years. It was designed to support those who we can evidence had a close connection to UK forces, often defined by a contractual or payment relationship—in blunt plain-English terms—where a sizeable commitment has been made. That draws a line for some individuals who were employed by the Afghan national army, the Afghan Government and elements of the security structures that the Afghan Government had at that time, for which eligibility is not created despite their role. The Taliban regime has created chaos, instability and terror through many communities in Afghanistan since our departure. That is why, as a Government, we are trying to accelerate and deliver the Afghan scheme.
The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned communications. That is entirely right. It is something I have been raising since becoming a Minister. We will introduce, from the autumn, a new series of communications designed to help people understand where their application is in the process. The new performance indicators will kick in from September time—roughly in the autumn—and that will seek to help people to understand where they are in the process. There is concern around understanding for how long a case will be dealt with. I also hope the performance indicators will have time-bound targets to help people be able to rate the performance of the Ministry of Defence. Certainly, when the Defence Secretary published his statement on the Afghan resettlement scheme at the end of last year, he made the case that we need to complete our obligation and bring the schemes to a close, and it is our objective to do so.
Luke Pollard
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman; I hope the hon. Lady does not mind.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
We are close to running out of time, I understand that. If I may, I just stress that the failing I am referring relates to the fact that the officer who commanded the garrison met this man regularly and had him at meetings in which they discussed future operations. He was trusted. He fed them intelligence. He helped support them, so that they did not go into areas where they should not have gone. The major who worked with this guy also made a statement about how important he was, even though, officially, there was not some kind of P45 that tied him to our pay structure. The reality is that he served us. All I ask is that the Minister recognises that, goes away and says, “This is not good enough. This individual needs to be saved very soon.” He may be dead. We do not have much time.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to continue the conversation with the right hon. Gentleman in the days ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 5th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 June 2025 - (5 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not permitted. We will now continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 7
The IFR’s general duties etc
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 7, page 5, line 27, at end insert—
“(d) conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA.”
This amendment requires the IFR to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to open day 2 of the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. On day 1 there was extensive debate about an issue that I am sure we will also get into today. We Opposition Members were keen to ensure that the Government’s new football regulator will improve transparency, help reduce costs to clubs and fans and stop political interference in football. It was disappointing that Government Members did not support those objectives.
Amendment 97 seeks to ensure that there are no conflicts with any of the regulations and rules of international footballing governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA. It clearly requires the Independent Football Regulator
“to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.”
As we know, UEFA has written to the Secretary of State to set out its concerns with the Bill. The letter came after the Government introduced the expanded version of the Bill. It is disappointing that the Government continue to refuse to publish it so that all Members can have an informed debate about the risks that UEFA outlined. I will not go over that debate again—I might get a yellow card if I do. The amendment would require the Government’s regulator to exercise its functions in a way that avoids conflicts with the rules, statutes and regulations of international football governing authorities, especially FIFA and UEFA.
The amendment is designed to protect the regulator’s ability to carry out the functions that the Government have assigned to it without inadvertently triggering consequences that could seriously damage English football’s standing in the international game and, in the worst-case scenario, lead to English clubs being removed from the Champions League and—perhaps more seriously—the national team being banned from competitions such as the European championship and the World cup. Let us make no mistake: if the Government’s regulator were to exercise its powers in ways that contravene the established framework of global football governance, the ramifications would be swift and severe.
A particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football. As hon. Members might know, under FIFA’s rules, any form of what is deemed undue third-party interference in the affairs of a national football association can result in disciplinary action. That can include suspension of the football association itself, exclusion of clubs from European competitions or the ineligibility of players to represent England in FIFA-sanctioned tournaments such as the World cup.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr McCartney—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Turner. Let the record show that I am living in the past—perhaps not as far in the past as some Opposition Members. My concern about what the shadow Minister is saying is that the Opposition seem to be keen on setting a higher bar for football than they would for areas of general law when we are talking about interactions across national borders, with the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union in mind. Will he reflect on that?
Mr French
The Lib Dem spokesman makes an interesting comparison. As I said in the Committee’s debate on Tuesday, my focus is on football, and I am outlining with this amendment my concerns about the interactions of a sport with other international competitions. I will come on to explain why football in particular is interwoven with international principles. The majority of fans want to focus on the sport, rather than politics. I am sure that there are many more debates to be had on issues such as the ECHR in the rest of this Parliament. I will stick to football today, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
UEFA’s ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competitions. That risk is very real: it has happened before and can happen again. In 2006, the Greek football federation was banned from European competition. People might argue that I am trying to scaremonger, but I am trying to highlight that this is a real risk.
It is important to clarify what FIFA and UEFA mean by “third-party interference”. It is not a casual term; it is clearly defined in their statutes. It refers to instances where public authorities, including Governments or regulators created by Government legislation, exert influence over how football is run in a way that compromises the independence of football associations and clubs. Examples include dictating the appointment or removal of club directors—which the Bill does—influencing the outcome of football disciplinary procedures and imposing governance models that conflict with internationally recognised standards.
Any new licensing requirements introduced by the IFR must be meticulously aligned with existing UEFA and national frameworks. It is therefore important that the IFR’s licensing criteria are complementary to football and created in full consultation with clubs and any other affected parties. Does the Minister accept that clubs, as entities directly impacted by licensing regulations, must have a full voice in the development and implementation of those requirements? What consultation are the Government or their regulator currently undertaking on these regulations?
Let me be clear: I understand that the creation of the IFR in and of itself is on the borderline of what constitutes third-party interference. We are taking great care to help the Government to redesign a regulator that is fully independent of Ministers and professionally competent. However, in the absence of clear statutory guidelines to avoid conflicts with international rules, there is a risk, or perhaps even an inevitability, that the Government’s regulator may, at some point in the future, cross a line drawn by UEFA or FIFA.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The shadow Minister is making a pertinent and important point. If the independent football regulator were inadvertently to cross lines into the jurisdictions of UEFA or FIFA, it could be catastrophic for English football. Clearly, that is not the purpose of the regulator. Given the success of many English teams in Europe, that would have serious ramifications. I genuinely think that the shadow Minister’s amendment is meant to be helpful and is incredibly important.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That is exactly what we are trying to do. This is not a wrecking amendment; we are just trying to tighten the Bill to ensure that no conflict arises that would damage the participation of English clubs or the national team in future competitions.
We know that UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep and that the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond its loosely defined current competences. That expansion, intentional or otherwise, into broader aspects of football governance could undermine established structures and processes of the sport and amount to Government interference.
That is why my amendment is needed. It would place a duty on the regulator to abide by long pre-existing international frameworks within which English football exists. It requires the Government’s regulator to ensure that, in pursuing its objectives, it does not create legal or procedural clashes with the statutes of FIFA and UEFA. Legislation that compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England would be non-compliant with those international statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally.
Some may ask why Parliament should concern itself with the rules of unelected international bodies. Why not simply legislate as we see fit and allow the regulator to act as robustly as necessary? On the surface, that is a fair political question, but we must recognise the reality of football governance. FIFA and UEFA are not advisory bodies; they are the organisations through which our clubs gain access to international competitions, including European competitions. They are custodians of the World cup, the European championship and the Champions League, to name just a few. Their statutes form part of the accepted legal architecture of the global game and all member associations, including the FA, are bound by them.
Max Wilkinson
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has suggested that that approach means that the Conservative party is happy being a rule taker, after all. Is that the case?
Max Wilkinson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which our FA has been involved in the making of those rules is a little bit like some other supranational organisations that we were a member of in the past—for example, the European Union?
Mr French
I would argue very strongly that when the English football team finally wins the World cup, it will get much more out of FIFA than this country would ever get out of the European Union.
English football does not exist in a vacuum, but the Bill acts as if it does. The global football ecosystem is fantastically complex, but the Bill is simple, clunky and—I am afraid to say—full of holes, which would potentially leave English football to drown among its international competition. I also fear that it will create even more legal cases, whereby clubs end up spending more time in courts than they do focusing on the football matches themselves.
To act as if we can disregard those international rules, or to suggest that a domestic regulator can impose conditions without reference to them, would be to invite precisely the sort of jurisdictional collision that could see English football punished because of the good intentions of Members of this House. We cannot just pander to the politics; we must be practical about the potential havoc that the Bill will wreak across the English football pyramid.
If FIFA or UEFA were to exclude English clubs or the national team from international competitions as a result of perceived third-party interference, the consequences would be nothing short of catastrophic. As hon. Members will know, the Premier League generates more than £6 billion in revenue annually, with over £1.8 billion coming from overseas broadcasting rights alone. In fact, I understand that the Premier League is the first sporting competition in Europe to generate more from its international broadcasting rights than it does from its domestic rights.
Lincoln Jopp
I suspect that Government Members will oppose the amendment. Given that, does my hon. Friend think that it would be reasonable of me to ask the Minister the extent to which UEFA has seen the Bill and signed it off as something that does not constitute political interference either way?
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is something that we discussed at some length during the Committee’s first sitting. It is disappointing that all members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend, do not have access to that information to help them to make informed decisions.
I appreciate some of the what-aboutery and counter-arguments that are made, but, as I have said, I will defend the right of Committee members to have full access to information. It is so important, in particular given the Committee’s function in respect of this legislation, that its members should have full and frank information. It is disappointing that that has not been disclosed so that we can fully understand all the risks.
The Premier League’s broadcasting rights are in no small part predicated on English clubs’ participation in the Champions League and the Europa League. Exclusion from those competitions would make our top clubs less attractive to global audiences and sponsors, shrinking the broadcast value of the league and undermining its international appeal.
Without wishing to confuse my sporting metaphors, that would have a knock-on effect further down the pyramid. If the Premier League makes less money, there is less money to distribute to the English Football League or the National League, which we will come on to when we consider other parts of the Bill. The Champions League alone contributes more than £300 million each season to English clubs, not including the knock-on commercial benefits. For top clubs, it accounts for up to 20% of their total revenue. Stripping that away would lead to cost-cutting, player sales and job losses, not just in clubs themselves but across the local economies that depend on matchday trade and revenue.
The FA also receives critical funding linked to England’s participation in international tournaments, as I know a number of pubs do; for example, when we are in the Euros in the summer, that normally means that the economy receives a boost. A ban from the World cup or the European championship would not only harm national pride but cut investment in grassroots football, which is often funded in part through FIFA’s global redistribution programmes or revenues generated by the national team.
Lincoln Jopp
Mr Turner, you will have seen the declaration of interests that I made on Tuesday. I seek the Committee’s indulgence; this is the only gratuitous intervention that I will make. Can the shadow Minister remind the Committee of the identity of the only team who have won every major European trophy, having recently won the UEFA Conference League?
Jim Dickson
I wonder whether any Opposition Members are able to assure us that, in winning those trophies, the club stuck to profit and sustainability rules as other clubs have done.
Mr French
I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Member did not talk about Crystal Palace’s success in the FA cup final. I am sure his point is noted by the Committee.
More broadly, the football industry supports around 100,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, contributes more than £7.6 billion to GDP and delivers £3.6 billion in tax revenues annually. A major disruption to international participation because of this Government’s regulator would clearly put a serious dent in all that. In short, any move that risks our relationship with UEFA and FIFA is not just a sporting gamble but an economic one, and a profoundly reckless move for any Government to take.
We must also consider the practical impact on clubs and fans. Imagine a scenario in which the Government’s regulator intervenes in the ownership model of a particular club in UEFA competitions and in doing so breaches UEFA’s licensing criteria. That club could find itself barred from the Champions League, the Europa League or other leagues through no fault of its own. Fans, players and club employees would suffer, and the club’s value and viability undermined, all as a result of a conflict that could and should have been avoided through foresight and careful drafting of this legislation.
There is precedent for this kind of statutory provision. In sectors such as financial services, we have long recognised the need for domestic regulators to align their actions with international frameworks that they are part of. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority operate in a global regulatory environment and Parliament has provided them with duties and powers that reflect that reality. This is not a novel concept; it is standard practice where cross-border frameworks exist. As the Government have chosen to model their regulator on those in financial services, perhaps the Minister can tell us why they have not done so in this regard.
Football is different. It is more internationally integrated than most sectors. Rules are more intertwined and clubs more interdependent on foreign clubs for competition, particularly at elite level. English clubs compete weekly in cross-border tournaments—for example, when Arsenal sadly lost to Paris Saint-Germain, who went on to win the Champions League. What a final that was. Players move freely between jurisdictions. Broadcasting rights are sold and consumed around the globe, as we have heard. Football’s regulatory framework must reflect that international dimension, not wilfully ignore it.
Some will say that the amendment is unnecessary because the regulator can use its discretion to avoid conflict, but without a statutory duty, it could operate without full regard to the consequences abroad. The amendment would place a clear and proportionate duty on the Government’s regulator—something that its leadership would be required to consider in every decision they take.
Importantly, the amendment would not hand international bodies a blank cheque. It would not bind the regulator to follow their rules blindly or to give up domestic responsibilities. What it would do is make sure that the Government’s regulator takes those rules into account and, wherever possible, avoids direct conflict. That is entirely reasonable and, in my view, essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the Government’s regulator.
We do not want to create a regulator that acts in splendid isolation. We want a regulator that defends English football’s integrity but also safeguards its place in the global game. It would be the height of irony if, in the process of attempting to strengthen our domestic football pyramid, we inadvertently isolated it from the wider footballing world, solving one problem only to create a much worse one. The amendment would act as a safeguard and send a signal to fans, clubs and international partners alike that we in Parliament understand the integrated nature of modern football and legislate accordingly.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. Amendment 97 is objectively reasonable; the Government, in setting up the independent football regulator, should want to do so in compliance with any FIFA or UEFA rules, in order to secure our national teams’ places in international tournaments.
There is a genuine risk that the football regulator may conflict with FIFA and UEFA rules, not least in the political appointment of its chair. I know that the Government do not think that it is political to appoint a chair who, in the current circumstances, donated to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but FIFA may take a different view. If FIFA takes a different view and seeks to ban our national sides, the Government will not be able to do anything about it. This is the moment to enshrine in law that the regulator must comply with FIFA and UEFA rules.
We can delve briefly into what we think FIFA might deem political. In 2016, FIFA fined domestic teams, including England, for wearing an armband with an Armistice Day poppy because, in FIFA’s view, the poppy is a political symbol. I think that is madness, and pretty much everyone in this country thinks it is madness, but that was FIFA’s view, and it levied a fine. I think that, after negotiation, FIFA has since changed its mind—but if that was its view of the poppy and all sorts of symbols that most ordinary people would not think of as political, I am concerned about what it will think about a football regulator that has a chair appointed by Government, who in this instance also donated to the leadership campaign of the Prime Minister of the day, and who may then exercise a decision over ownership of a particular club in this country. I suspect FIFA may think that is political and conflicts with the ability of England and other home nations to compete in international events. The Government can deal with that very simply.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he is speaking in support of this amendment or against it? As far as I can see, if UEFA or FIFA decides that the poppy is a political symbol, the shadow Minister’s amendment would mean that we would have to follow that decision.
Joe Robertson
No. The football regulator is not set up—unless the Government view otherwise—to decide what symbols the England national team wear on their arms. It is set up for all sorts of things such as financial viability and ownership models of teams within the English leagues. My point is about how FIFA views political interference and political symbols. It is clearly very sensitive to them and has a very high bar. I am concerned that, if the football regulator breaches that bar, England will be restricted from entering international tournaments. The Government will not be able to do anything about it at that point, but they can deal with it now by mandating the football regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules. The football regulator will not be responsible for symbols on football shirts.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Turner. The hon. Gentleman is talking about political statements, and my understanding is that FIFA’s rulings are on political statements made on players’ kits. It did not make a ruling on players taking the knee and did not impose sanctions on them for doing so. That was seen as a political stance by some, but FIFA ruled that it was not a political stance because it was not on their kit.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Lady and I can debate all day what we think is political and our recollection of what FIFA has ruled or not ruled in the past. However, that is not relevant, because she and I will have no decision-making authority over the football regulator once the Bill is passed. It would be much better that we build into the system a requirement for the regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules, whatever they may be, to secure the future of our domestic football teams in international tournaments.
Max Wilkinson
I may have misread the documentation for this Committee, but I am pretty sure I read an Opposition amendment that would allow a football club’s political intervention or statement if the club had established that a majority of its fans were in favour of that political statement or intervention. That seems to be somewhat at odds with what is currently being argued.
Joe Robertson
No, I do not accept that. All the amendment does is to seek the compliance of the football regulator, which this Government are trying to set up, with the major international governing bodies—FIFA and UEFA. Any arguments about political interference and political symbols and how decisions on them are made will be a matter for FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the regulator, but we should want to ensure that the regulator is required not to do anything that conflicts with the rules of FIFA and UEFA.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The hon. Member has talked about the appointment of the chair and how the political connections of the nominated person might be deemed to conflict with the neutrality that FIFA expects in the way football is run. I direct him to paragraph 9(b) of schedule 2, which talks about the tenure of non-exec members, and provides that the Secretary of State may remove a non-exec member of the regulator if they have a conflict of interest. Surely if FIFA said that a person had political connections and therefore was not appropriate to be the chair, that would be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State could act at that point. That is already covered in the Bill.
Joe Robertson
I, and I suspect a lot of fans, would not be comfortable if there was a negotiation between FIFA and the Government—by the way, the current Secretary of State received money from the current preferred candidate—about the viability of the England national team playing in an international tournament, when what they were negotiating about was the suitability or decision making of a political donor to that Government. That is not healthy. It does not satisfy me.
I would much prefer that there was a provision in the Bill that clearly stated that the football regulator—that is more than just the chair; it is the entire body—must not do anything that
“conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies”.
By the way, this is about far more than just politics; I use the political issue as an example, but there are many other ways in which the regulator could conflict with FIFA and UEFA. I am sure that nobody here intends that it does, so let us build that into the Bill.
Mr French
A point that is being slightly missed in this exchange is something that I mentioned in my speech: the impact and risk for clubs and whether the line is crossed. In particular, the qualification for the Champions League each year in the Premier League is a huge source of revenue, as I explained. Having that risk at play could deter the inward investment into clubs that we know is key to the future success of English football, as we have already seen. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Joe Robertson
I agree with the shadow Minister. I suppose there is a not-too-fanciful theoretical situation in which the football regulator makes a decision on the ownership of a club that has otherwise qualified for the Champions League, and that decision was made by a body headed up by someone who had donated to the Prime Minister of the country. I think that that would be a problem. However, if clause 7 were amended, he would have to recuse himself, or the body would have to deal with it in a different way. My hon. Friend demonstrates perhaps the most likely scenario and the most powerful justification for backing the amendment. I urge all Members to do so.
Lincoln Jopp
I ask the Minister to respond to this simple question: has the Bill as drafted been shared with UEFA? Is UEFA satisfied that it does not represent political control?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for his amendment. I understand that its intent is to put beyond any doubt that the Bill and the regulator will not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes, and so will not risk English clubs or national teams being banned from international competitions. I will set out why we do not think the amendment is necessary, and then I will respond to some of the questions that hon. Members posed during the debate.
I assure the Committee that the amendment is not necessary. UEFA and FIFA statutes require that the FA manages its affairs without undue influence from third parties and remains independent of political interference. The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game.
The shadow Minister asked about consultation. Through the observer role on the regulator board, there is an explicit requirement to consult the FA. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will not allow it to undermine FIFA’s or UEFA’s statutes. That is why—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne—UEFA has confirmed in writing to the Secretary of State that the Bill as drafted does not breach UEFA statutes. The FA has also confirmed that directly to Members of both Houses, and it is of course publicly supportive of the Bill.
Rather than protect English football, I am afraid that the amendment would have serious unintended consequences. It would put the regulator in a position of deference to a private international organisation—a point the hon. Member for Cheltenham made eloquently a number of times. That would not only undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, but leave English football in a very weak position. UEFA has confirmed that the amendment is not needed, and it would undermine parliamentary sovereignty; for those very straightforward reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
Although I do not doubt the Minister’s sincere belief in the assurances she has given, I am afraid that unless we have evidence that gives the Opposition certainty about them, we will not withdraw our amendment. We are very concerned about the future participation of English clubs in Europe and of the national team in European and world competitions for reasons that I outlined in my speech—in the interest of time, I will not repeat them now.
I note that the Minister was very careful in her wording when she talked about what was said in the letter from UEFA. She talked about the Bill “as drafted”. The Opposition are extremely concerned about scope creep from the regulator, and much of our contributions have focused on the fact that the future regulator may take a decision that is not in conformity with the rules of FIFA and UEFA, which this House would then have few means to change. That would put at risk clubs, investment and jobs in clubs up and down the country. That is why I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 7, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) The IFR may not redistribute revenue, income or any monies from one regulated club to another regulated club.”
This amendment prevents the IFR from redistributing any funds from one club to another.
Again, it is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I promise that this speech will be slightly shorter than the last one—people will be pleased to know that.
Amendment 98 would make it explicit that the Government’s regulator should not engage in the practice of redistributing income or revenue from one club to another. This is a necessary and prudent safeguard and goes to the heart of how we preserve competitive integrity, protect private investment and ensure that the scope of the regulation does not veer into a form of creeping central planning in our national game. Nowhere in the Bill as it stands is it clearly ruled out that this new public body—run by an appointee of the Secretary of State, as we have heard—could compel the transfer of funds between clubs in the name of sustainability, redistribution or solidarity.
That is why the amendment is so important. It would place a clear statutory limit on the power of the Government’s regulator. It would ensure that the regulator could not, in any circumstances, divert resources from one privately owned club to help to subsidise another. It would preserve the principle that the money earned by clubs—through good management, fan support, on-field success or commercial acumen—belongs to those clubs, not to a central authority acting as some sort of financial equaliser. Although I am sure that hon. Members will say that that will never happen, it is important that we, as Members of this House, make sure that it never does. If Members believe that it will never happen, making this amendment to the Bill will not affect the operation of the Government’s regulator. There is no reason to oppose the amendment, other than political goal scoring.
This issue goes far beyond football; it touches on the fundamental principles of ownership, competition and economic freedom. As we have heard, private investment in English football has helped to transform the game. Whether in the Premier League or lower leagues we have seen owners, both domestic and international, commit hundreds of millions of pounds to develop stadiums, invest in training grounds, nurture local talent and grow their clubs responsibly. That investment has come in the expectation of fair competition and the ability to retain the fruits of one’s success. We all know that it has not always been done with the best intentions, but the Government have decided to bring in a regulatory sledgehammer to crack this particular nut. A small minority of owners should not be responsible for upending the entire English football system, which has stood and evolved over more than 100 years.
If the Government’s regulator is granted the power to override that and to redistribute revenues forcibly between specific clubs, that risks undermining the very conditions that made English football the most watched and commercially successful league system in the world. It sends a chilling message to investors that success may be penalised, ambition discouraged and financial reward diluted in the name of a central diktat. It would also, as I said when I moved amendment 97, demonstrate a total violation of the independence of English football from a Government regulator, which would assuredly constitute a violation of UEFA and FIFA rules, in turn leading to the expulsion of our clubs from competitions, as we have just discussed. UEFA states that mandating redistribution that affects
“the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us. We also fear that having a third party intervene in redistribution would likely prevent amicable solutions being found.”
It is not difficult to imagine where that could lead. A well-run League One club, generating income from smart ticketing and loyal fan engagement, could find its revenues skimmed off to support a rival that has been less prudent or less entrepreneurial with its fan engagement. A Championship club breaking even through hard decisions and local investment could be told that its television share will be trimmed to subsidise losses made elsewhere by a less prudent board or chairman. That is not regulation, but redistribution by bureaucratic diktat.
Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the redistribution of moneys in English football. Voluntary redistribution negotiated by clubs, leagues and the FA is a long-standing and respected feature of the game, but there is a profound difference between clubs choosing to support one another and the Government’s regulator imposing that from above, using statutory powers to shift money between private enterprises without consent.
Max Wilkinson
In some countries, television deals are struck directly between broadcasters and clubs. If that happened in this country in the future—were Manchester City, Arsenal or Liverpool to strike a direct deal—would we not end up in a situation where the regulator might have to consider redistributing directly from one club to ensure that the redistribution that the hon. Gentleman argues for can take place?
Mr French
I understand the Lib Dem spokesman’s point, but in my understanding, that would be the responsibility of the leagues. That is not what we are trying to block with this amendment; we are trying to block club-to-club forced redistribution. That is an important distinction, and I will come on to explain why.
I do not believe that this is a theoretical concern. The regulator’s objectives include financial sustainability. One can easily imagine a future regulator interpreting this objective to mean that it should balance resources across the pyramid, effectively redistributing funds to prop up weaker clubs. Without this amendment, nothing in legislation explicitly prevents such a scenario.
Some may argue that redistribution is needed to make the game fairer—I understand that point—but fairness in football has always been earned through competition, not imposed through central control. We must be very cautious about importing the language and logic of equalisation into a sport that depends for its vitality on aspiration, competition and merit. Sporting competition is a hill that I am willing to die on.
It is also worth noting that forced redistribution between clubs would create perverse incentives. It would reward financial mismanagement and punish prudence, and it would create a moral hazard where clubs are less motivated to balance their books if they believe that the regulator will require others to bail them out. That is not a path to sustainability; it is a recipe for mediocrity, or worse, disaster.
The principle at stake is clear: the role of the regulator is to set standards, ensure compliance and uphold integrity, and not to act as a central accountant deciding who deserves what. If clubs wish to strike revenue-sharing deals through their leagues, they may do so. The amendment draws a line: it protects club autonomy and supports continued investment in the game, and it ensures that the Government’s regulator—whatever its remit ends up being—respects the rights of clubs to manage and retain their own finances.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the shadow Minister for the amendment and the chance to clarify the Government’s position on the redistribution of revenue. Let me be clear: the backstop process will apply only to revenue received by the leagues. That is already explicit in the definition of “relevant revenue” in clause 56. It does not allow the regulator to include individual club revenue that is not relevant for distribution agreements—for example, shirt sales. The amendment is not necessary to ensure that. It would call into question the regulator’s powers under the backstop process. Although that process is about resolving distribution disputes between the leagues, not individual teams, the money received by the leagues is ultimately distributed to their member teams.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for seeking to provide clarification. Can she clarify what would happen in the scenario posed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham? If a club such as Manchester City were to negotiate a TV rights deal abroad, and it was a very good deal, should the football regulator have any role in seeking to redistribute that money in any circumstances?
Stephanie Peacock
The point in the intervention speaks contrary to the amendment that we are discussing. It is somewhat confusing—[Interruption.] It was a question, indeed, but it speaks contrary to the amendment in the shadow Minister’s name.
The amendment would cast doubt on the regulator’s ability to effectively deploy the backstop, even where requested to do so as a last resort by the leagues. For the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause sets out the general duties of the regulator to define when and how it can act. The regulator must act in a way that, in so far as is reasonably practicable, is compatible with the purpose of the Bill—to protect and promote the sustainability of English football—and that advances one or more of its objectives. As part of that, the clause requires the regulator to, where appropriate, take certain things into consideration when it acts. As the regulator is required only to “have regard to” these things, it is not strictly bound by them, and so its operational independence is not undermined.
The regulator must consider some key outcomes in the football market, beyond its primary objectives. Specifically, where possible, it should have due regard to the desirability of avoiding indirect impacts on: the sporting outcomes of regulated clubs; the competitiveness of regulated clubs against other clubs, which includes overseas competitors; and investment into, and growth of, English football. That recognises that there are other features of the market that should be protected. We want a sustainable football pyramid, but not at the expense of the exciting, competitive product that continues to attract so many viewers and investors. We have explicitly added growth to this provision. The regulator will not actively pursue these outcomes, but it will be mindful of unduly harming them while it advances its statutory objectives.
The regulator must also have regard to five further things when exercising its functions. They include its regulatory principles, which guide how it should operate, its own guidance and the guidance from the Secretary of State, the most recent state of the game report, and the most recent football governance statement from the Secretary of State. We will discuss some of those points later today. I commend the clause to the House.
Mr French
It is disappointing that our amendments, which were tabled in a constructive manner, not a political one, have not been accepted. We remain concerned about some of those risks to the future of English football, but we will not seek to divide the Committee on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
The IFR’s regulatory principles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The regulatory principles outlined in this clause are designed to guide the regulator to exercise its functions appropriately and in the manner intended by Parliament. The regulator must have regard to those principles when acting. The first principle encourages time and cost efficiency in everything that the regulator undertakes, encouraging swift action and value for money. The second principle encourages the regulator to co-operate with both those it regulates and those who will be impacted by its decisions. That reflects that the ideal regulatory environment is one where all stakeholders are working towards the same goals. Therefore, where the Bill says that the regulator should consult other relevant persons, we would expect that those affected by its decisions, such as fans, players, and representative groups, would be included when appropriate.
The third principle encourages the regulator to consider, before acting, whether the intervention is necessary, and if the same outcome could be achieved in a less burdensome way. That steers the regulator to take a light-touch approach to regulation where appropriate. The fourth principle encourages proportionality. The regulator should always look to choose the least restrictive action that still delivers the intended outcome, and be able to justify why any burden is worth it for the benefits expected. The fifth principle encourages the regulator to acknowledge the unique sporting context in which it is regulating. For example, it should consider the existing rules and burdens that clubs are subject to, and that market features such as transfer windows impose unique constraints on clubs.
The sixth principle encourages the regulator to apply regulation consistently, while still ensuring that requirements are appropriately tailored to a club’s specific circumstances. A Premier League club and a National League club operate in very different ways and face very different risks, and the regulator should and will take that into account when regulating, as I heard when meeting representatives of the Premier League, the EFL and the National League. The seventh principle encourages the regulator to hold the individuals responsible for making decisions at a club accountable for the actions and compliance of the club. For too long, clubs and fans have suffered the consequences of bad actors and mismanagement by the individuals calling the shots.
The eighth and final principle encourages the regulator to be transparent in its actions. It is important that the regulator and its regime are open and accessible to the industry, fans and the general public. I commend the clause to the House.
Mr French
I will not seek to repeat all the objectives that the Minister outlined for clause 8, but I will make some comments on each principle, and pose some questions to which I hope she can provide answers.
As the Minister described, clause 8 outlines the eight operating principles that guide the regulator’s approach. First, the Government’s regulator should be on time and cost-efficient, which is why I have tabled amendment 101 to clause 16. Secondly, the Government’s regulator should take a participative approach to regulation, helping to co-ordinate and co-operating with clubs and competition organisations, as well as engaging with players, fans and others. That relates to an amendment that we will come to shortly.
Thirdly, the Government’s regulator should be light touch in its approach to regulation, wherever possible. Sadly, we Opposition Members believe that that is now highly questionable due to some of the new parts of the Bill, which we raised concerns about in the first day’s sitting. Fourthly, the Government’s regulator should be proportionate in everything it does. Again, we have concerns about that and we have outlined some of those already.
Fifthly, the Government’s regulator should acknowledge the unique sporting context in which it is regulating, aiming to minimise any potential disruption to sporting competitions. I will not go through the debate we just had around UEFA international competitions, but I again highlight some of my earlier questions that I put to the Government on Tuesday about how this regulator is benchmarked against other regulators, because, in a sporting context, it is the first of its kind. It is very difficult for us to understand where the Government are moving towards, whether that is about resources, the size of the regulator, or the future direction, and we would like some clarity on that.
Sixthly, the Government’s regulator should apply the regulation consistently. We all hope that the regulator will do that in the future. Seventhly, the Government’s regulator should, where appropriate, hold individuals responsible for the actions of the club. That is absolutely right. There are clauses that seek to do that, and, as we have heard, to identify the appropriate officers and senior directors for different components of the club.
Eighthly, the Government’s regulator should be as transparent as possible in everything it does. Disappointingly, Government Members voted against the transparency amendments that we tabled, which, again, were not political; they were aimed to future-proof the transparency regarding how the regulator operates. I fundamentally believe that Members, regardless of what party they belong to, should be able to have all the information to make informed decisions on the benefits to their constituents.
Many of the principles in this clause are generally welcome, but I seek clarity from the Minister on a few matters. Does she think that these principles are strong enough to prevent the regulator from jeopardising the future participation of English clubs, particularly abroad? The fifth principle states that the regulator “should” aim to minimise disruption. Surely—we believe—it “must” avoid disruption, because of the risks that I outlined in previous amendments.
Lastly, none of the principles reference or reinforce the regulator’s independence. Why is there no principle regarding the regulator’s independence from the Government and politics at large, for the reasons we have outlined?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for broadly welcoming the principles. I will address a couple of those points, but without rehearsing this whole debate. Independence runs throughout this Bill; it is very clear that it is an independent football regulator, and we will talk about some of the safeguards for that in future debates.
The principles that we are debating are the same as they were under the previous Bill, with one exception: the third principle has been added, which is about making this less burdensome and which steers towards a light-touch regulator. I think that Members across the House would welcome that.
I will not rehearse the conversations we had on the make-up of the regulator—on staffing and so on, which we spoke about that the other day—but the shadow Minister touched again on UEFA. I gently remind him that we removed the need for the regulator to have regard to Government’s foreign and trade policy when considering club takeovers. We took that out of the previous Bill, and that is clearly welcome in the context of that UEFA debate. We are therefore confident that these are the right principles to guide the regulator to do a good job.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 9
Transfer schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
We are committed to establishing the regulator as quickly as possible post the passing of this Bill. To that end, the regulator is currently operating in shadow form in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in parallel to the passage of this Bill. This is a precedented approach; for example, the Trade Remedies Authority was run as a shadow function out of the Department for International Trade before it was formally established by the Trade Act 2021.
The shadow football regulator has started work to develop the regulator’s policy and guidance, engage with stakeholders, and undertake the necessary corporate activity to build an organisation, such as recruitment and procurement. That will enable the regulator to hit the ground running once it is legally established. The shadow regulator, of course, was established by the previous Government, as they clearly also recognised the importance of the regulator being ready to operate as soon as possible once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
On the creation of the regulator, it will be necessary for the property, rights, liabilities and staff held by the shadow regulator within DCMS to be transferred to the regulator. The most appropriate vehicle for effecting these transfers will be a statutory transfer scheme, as has been used in similar situations involving the transfer of assets following the transfer of functions between public bodies. The details of such transfers will be determined at the point of transfer.
Mr French
As we heard from the Minister, the clause relates to the transfer of staffing, resources and property to the Government’s regulator in the future. I would like to ask her—this goes back to an earlier conversation on the potential direction of travel, size and scope—how many staff will be transferred? What resources or properties are we talking about, so that taxpayers can understand, and what cost will there be to the taxpayer? Hopefully, those are fair questions.
We did seek to put an employee cap into the Bill to help to maintain value for money for taxpayers. I think that was a fair proposal, but Members did not agree with it or with the number of 50 that we put forward. However, the principle of trying to cap the size of the regulator is fair, especially given the size of some of the regulators that were described in comparison—I believe one had 900 members of staff. Most members of the public would be alarmed if the football regulator ended up anywhere near that, let alone a tenth of it. We are concerned, so I ask the Minister again, given the impact on costs to football clubs linked to the regulator, how big the Government expect it to grow. Can she also answer the questions that were raised about what will be transferred on day one?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those questions, which somewhat rehearse the previous debate on the staffing of the shadow regulator. He should have received an answer to the written question, and we spoke about this last time; as of 1 June, it has 42 staff. I cannot comment on exactly how many staff there will be at the point of Royal Assent. In my remarks, I said that upon the creation of the regulator, property rights, liabilities and staff will be transferred. I am happy at that point to write to the shadow Minister, but I will not speculate now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 10
State of the game report
Mr Betts
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(d) an assessment of any existing and effective financial distribution agreement against the principles set out in section 62(2);”
This amendment would require the state of the game report to make an assessment of any existing and effective financial distribution agreement against the principles set out in distribution orders for the resolution process.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. We are finally starting to get on to the football issues in the Bill. The state of the game report is obviously a key element. It will shape how the regulator operates, and eventually, the financial distribution, which we will come to later in the Bill. So the report is really important.
Amendment 2, without undermining what is already in the Bill in any way, simply ensures that the financial distribution as it exists, and as it might exist according to the principles laid out in further clauses of the Bill, is taken into account when developing the state of the game report. It brings a symmetry to the whole process, so that the state of the game report looks at the financial distribution, and when we come to the financial distribution, it goes back to look at the state of the game report. It is a simple amendment that makes the Bill coherent as a whole. I hope that the Minister might at least consider it when looking at how the Bill might be improved.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for tabling this amendment. As I said in a previous sitting, we have a lot of respect for the work that he does chairing the football all-party parliamentary group.
The amendment would require the state of the game report to assess existing and effective financial distribution agreements against the principles. My understanding is that the amendment would therefore require the Independent Football Regulator to assess existing agreements against the principles in clause 62(2)—namely that they
“(a) should advance the IFR’s objectives,
(b) should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either specified competition organiser, and
(c) should not, if a distribution order were made in accordance with the final proposal, result in a lower amount of relegation revenue”—
also known as parachute payments—
“being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to a club during that period had such a distribution order not been made.”
There are a lot of words there.
Max Wilkinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner—I got it right this time.
We support the amendment. We believe it is in the interests of the game to redistribute money further from the top to the Football League and further down the pyramid. We believe the only way that will be achieved is if, via the mechanism of the football regulator, there is regular reporting that then demonstrates what we know is true—that an increasing amount of money is being hoarded by the Premier League, while those lower down tend to miss out.
We know that over the past few years or decades, since the inception of the Premier League, more and more money floating around in football is being retained by the Premier League as a proportion of the amount of money that is available. That is not a good thing for football. It is not a good thing for the sustainability of the game. We believe that this simple reporting mechanism will give further oxygen to the discussion about why that is harmful, and will hopefully, over time, result in further redistribution. That is why we support and welcome the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for the amendment. I understand its aims. We do not consider it necessary, as we are confident that the Bill already covers the issue. Per clause 10, the regulator will be obliged to look into the main issues affecting English football and any features of the market that risk jeopardising its objectives. If the existing distribution arrangement meets either of those criteria, the regulator will cover it in the state of the game report. I reassure my hon. Friend that the regulator has the ability to address distributions in the sector if the current scenario reaches a threshold, and we will discuss those powers when we get to part 6.
In general, we have not taken the approach of being overly prescriptive and listing every issue the regulator could and should look at here in the Bill.
Mr Betts
I am trying to work out what the Minister is saying. Is she saying that the amendment is unnecessary, because in the state of the game report as laid down already in the Bill, the regulator can do precisely that—look at the distribution within football? There were some other words added then about what might be a restraint on the regulator’s ability to do that. Is the regulator completely free to look at the distribution of resources and revenue within football as it stands?
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, the regulator has the ability to address distribution in the sector if the current scenario reaches the threshold. We will come on to discuss that in part 6. I was going to say that, in general, we have not taken the approach of being too prescriptive and listing every issue in the Bill that the regulator could and should look at, as that would be contrary to the light-touch regulator that we have discussed throughout the Committee’s proceedings. I can be very clear in answering my hon. Friend’s question: it has the ability as it stands, and we will discuss that point further in part 6. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment for those reasons.
Mr Betts
I think I am reassured by what the Minister is saying. It is obviously quite a complicated area, and it links in to what comes later in the Bill. Maybe we can pursue this later. I want to be certain that the regulator has these powers, because I believe that much of the concern among football fans is around the current distribution of revenue, and we must ensure that when we have finished with the Bill, it sorts that problem out. At this stage I will not pursue this to a vote, but we will have discussions about distribution in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 123, clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
“(d) an assessment of the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets.”
This amendment would require the IFR to include in its state of the game report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to debate amendment 122, clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert—
“(aa) the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets, and”
This amendment would require the IFR to include in its annual report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.
Mr French
Clause 10 provides for what is described as a state of the game report—a new mechanism by which the Government’s regulator is expected to take stock of the health, direction and trends within English football. It is, in theory, a very valuable exercise for both fans and clubs. Done well, it offers an opportunity to review not only the financial condition of the game but its accessibility, integrity and future direction. But for the clause to serve its purpose, the report must include those issues which matter most to the people who sustain our national game—the fans that it purports to protect. That is why I wish to speak to my amendments 123 and 122.
Amendment 123 would require the state of the game report to include an assessment of the impact that the regulator’s activities have had on ticket prices. Amendment 122 is tabled in a similar vein, and would require that same assessment to appear in the regulator’s annual report as well. These are modest and reasonable proposals, but they are also very important.
The cost of attending football in this country has risen markedly in recent years. For millions of supporters, particularly those attending with children or travelling away from home, football is no longer the affordable pastime it once was—we have seen those protests in the stands and outside grounds on a number of occasions this season. While the causes are complex, it is certain that increased regulatory costs, compliance burdens and mandated structural changes may be passed on, directly or indirectly, to the supporter at the turnstile. If we are to create a regulator with statutory powers over finance, governance, and club operations, surely it is not too much to ask that we track the real-world consequences of those interventions.
Max Wilkinson
I think the hon. Gentleman is arguing that ticket prices are already going up anyway. Football clubs are raising their prices—in some cases, as fan groups have argued, in the case of Manchester United, for example, unnecessarily—and are discriminatorily against people who have disabilities. Certain concession tickets are being removed already. I wonder whether he might reflect on the free market as it currently operates in football, or whether that is failing already, so that the regulator actually is trying to solve some of these problems by ensuring that fans are properly engaged with on these matters.
Mr French
I absolutely understand the point that the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats makes. One of the extreme examples, which he used, of Manchester United—if I remember correctly, the owner involved was one of the people who were coming out in support of a Labour Government before the last election, so it will be quite interesting to see what the Minister says about the behaviour of said advocate of the Labour Government in that regard. He makes an interesting point, because fans are being impacted by ticket prices; we all understand that. It is about, as I have consistently tried to say—it is a theme of our amendments—ensuring transparency about how the regulator is or is not impacting the game. We believe the amendment represents a fair and reasonable request—that someone marks the regulator’s homework so that we can understand the impact.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. By what measure will it be possible to work out that the cost of the Independent Football Regulator has a direct consequence on the price of tickets? For example, a club could look to recoup any losses from a regulator by increasing shirt sales, or by putting 10p on a pint on the commercial sales that they get as part of their matchday revenue. Is this amendment more politically motivated, to try to pass blame on to the IFR for any matchday ticket pricing, rather than to understand the true cost of the independent regulator to football clubs?
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As I said, it really is about transparency. We believe that we, as elected Members of this House, need to have an understanding of the impact that the regulator will have on the ultimate person, which in this case is the club’s fans. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
I understand the hon. Member’s point, and I did say that the causes of price increases are complex. I will not read out all the figures, but clubs’ costs have increased just this year, whether because of energy bills, national insurance or wages. We are concerned about the burdens and requirements that the regulator will impose on clubs increasing their costs and about those being passed on to the end fan, who is already under significant pressure.
Ticket prices are not an incidental issue; they are a barometer of whether the game remains accessible to its core community. We know that regulation drives up prices, through compliance costs, as I have said, and by reducing investment and squeezing margins even further. The Government must have the courage to recognise that and to adjust course if necessary by ensuring greater transparency about costs. Requiring the regulator to report on that, in its general state of the game report and its annual report, would embed an essential feedback loop in statue. It would ensure that the impact on fans was not an afterthought, but a standing obligation for the regulator.
It is not enough for the Government’s regulator to simply say, “We have improved governance and we ensure sustainability,” if we then learn, in the same breath, that the average family can no longer afford to attend any more games. Football cannot become financially sustainable by pricing out its own supporters: I suspect all Members would agree on that point. I would add that ticket affordability is a deeply traditional concern. It goes to the very heart of football’s place in English lives. Fans must not be priced out of their favourite club in the name of regulation. If we forget that, we forget the point of the Bill, which is the fans.
Let me also stress that the amendment does not restrict the regulator. It does not tie its hands; it simply requires transparency. It says to the Government’s regulator: “If your actions are driving up the cost of entry to the game, tell us, tell the fans and tell Parliament.” Then, we can at least have an honest discussion in this House about whether those actions are justified or proportionate. That is especially important when we consider that many of the regulator’s decisions, whether on licensing, financial rules or ownership models, will almost certainly have financial consequences. Clubs will find ways to balance their books, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham just intervened to say, and if the regulation increases their fixed costs, the easiest lever to pull is ticket price. That is not conjecture; it is basic economics—although we know that some members of the Labour party struggle with that.
In the end, these two amendments ask only that we shine a light on the question that supporters ask every season: “Why is it getting more expensive to watch my club?” If relegation is part of the answer—[Interruption]—or rather if regulation is; relegation is definitely part of the answer—then we have a duty in this House to know and to ensure that we make laws that shine a light and ensure transparency for everyone to understand.
Lincoln Jopp
I rise as someone who currently has an invitation in my inbox to renew my season ticket for an eye-watering £950. I would love to know where all that money goes, as the shadow spokesman said, and why the price has gone in the direction it has.
The amendment should not be seen as counter to the regulator. There was significant pushback from the Government Benches when we tried to amend the regulator in terms of size and pay, and we also discussed the budget. If, in a regulated environment, the ticket price went up from £950 to, say, £980, then this amendment would ensure that fans were made aware that that 30 quid had gone on being part of a regulated industry. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for us to want to communicate with the viewing public. Equally, it would create a relationship between the fan and the regulator that might not otherwise be there, so I support the amendment.
Max Wilkinson
We are strongly opposed to the amendment, for a few reasons. First, it will be impossible for the regulator to know whether its actions and costs are being reflected in ticket prices. It must be absolutely obvious to everyone that the cost of the regulator per club is dwarfed by the salaries of the first team of a Premier League club alone. A bit of back-of-a-fag-packet maths tell us that. I am aware that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East is not keen on this, but it is important for us just to use some simple logic. It will be impossible for the regulator to know, so it will have to go to the football clubs and ask the owners, who, let’s face it, might have an interest in blaming the regulator for increased ticket prices, whether or not the actions of the regulator have been the cause.
Lincoln Jopp
The Liberal Democrat spokesman talks about dodgy owners. My season ticket is for a Premier League club; a season ticket for, say, Ashford Town (Middlesex) FC for the forthcoming season is £130. I think part of the function of this amendment is to make the regulator aware of the costs that it puts on well-run but smaller clubs. Simply making decisions and acting under this legislation without any sense of the financial impact and imposition that it is making on those clubs would be a very worrying way to do business, but the amendment would slightly redress the balance between club and regulator.
Max Wilkinson
It is not clear to me that Ashford Town (Middlesex) would be one of the clubs covered by the regulator. I am not sure what division they are in, but I do not think they are in the top five at the moment, although I wish them well in the forthcoming season and their efforts for promotion.
Mr French
I am not going to guess what league that club is in, but I am sure they are brilliant, whoever they are. I will not seek to offend anyone’s club by not knowing what league they are in. But the fundamental premise of the argument that the Liberal Democrats are making is that this amendment would give bad owners, if we can describe them as that, a get-out clause to blame the regulator for decisions that they are making. I think that is the argument, and the hon. Member is nodding, but this amendment would, if anything, help to shine a spotlight to stop them making that argument, because they can do that regardless of the amendment. We know that a regulator will come in. The Labour party has a huge majority; the regulator is coming, so the same owners, using the same principle he has just argued, could still make that argument, regardless of this amendment, because they know that they will have extra duties. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that fans and ticket prices are at the heart of the reporting that we see in the future, as Members and as fans as well.
Max Wilkinson
We are seeking to avoid the guarantee that what has been described will happen. As I have said, I think it will be impossible for the regulator to know, so it will be putting a finger up in the air and saying, “We think it has been 50p per ticket in League Two” or in the National League, and it may be £1 per ticket in the Premier League. But the regulator will not know. We cannot know now; it will not know in the future. Only the people who own the football clubs will be able to say, and it is obvious what they will say; we will be giving them a get-out. We strongly oppose this amendment, for those reasons.
Joe Robertson
Once again, I am going to refuse the temptation to make a political point about back-of-a-fag-packet calculations by the Liberal Democrats. This amendment does not provide a get-out for clubs to blame the regulator for putting their ticket prices up. They could do that anyway. Clubs can, if they want, try to blame the regulator, regardless of whether the regulator has a power or a compulsion to assess its own impact on ticket prices. What the amendment seeks to do is just add a layer of transparency. Of course, it is up to the regulator to make its own assessment of its impact on ticket prices, and it may be that its assessment is that it has had a negligible effect. However, it seems entirely reasonable, in the interests of transparency, to compel the regulator to nevertheless make this assessment. At the end of the day, we should all be here in the interests of one group of people only—the fans—and it would be a great shame, indeed worse than that, if the regulator were to increase the cost of match tickets, which are already very high.
Stephanie Peacock
The amendments from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup regarding ticket pricing touch on an important issue that I recognise is very important to fans. I reassure fans that the Bill will increase clubs’ overall accountability, including on this important issue. However, the annual report is not an effective place to address ticket prices.
Ticket pricing is fundamentally a commercial decision, and it would not be appropriate for the regulator to interfere with the commercial decisions of a private company. That is why the regulator will not intervene on this issue, aside from ensuring that clubs consult their fans on ticket pricing. It may well be that the regulator chooses to look at ticket pricing as part of the state of the game report, but mandating that it reviews the effect of its regulatory activities on ticket pricing as part of the report would be unnecessarily prescriptive.
Ticket pricing is ultimately a matter for clubs and is driven by many factors, but we do think it vital that fans are consulted and can have their voices heard. That is exactly why this Government amended the previous Government’s Bill to add an explicit requirement that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing and take their views into account as part of fan engagement. That is the way to ensure that fans can have their voices heard on such an impactful issue.
The amendment seems to assume that the cost will be passed on to fans in the form of higher ticket pricing. I want to be clear, as I was on Second Reading, that that would not be a proportionate response by clubs. If clubs increase ticket pricing, it will not be because they cannot otherwise afford to pay the regulator’s levy. As mentioned before, the cost of the regulator will be tiny compared with the vast revenue of the game, and the cost of the levy will not be among any club’s top area of expenditure.
Every measure has been taken to ensure affordability. No club will be charged to the point of needing to increase ticket pricing, and no fan will be subject to price rises without having their voice heard—I associate myself with the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
It is rather disappointing that the Liberal Democrats and Labour seem to be against the principle of transparency for fans of the impact on ticket prices, given that the issue is so pertinent to fans across the country. As Conservatives, we want to stick up for those fans. We understand the costs of going to a game, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said—I will not criticise his choice of club. Going to games and season tickets cost a lot of money for the average fan, and we have seen the impact of that. One example was the cost for Man City fans of coming down to the semi-final. Part of Wembley was empty because fans were saying that they could not afford the costs, because of the times of fixtures, although that is a slightly different point. We have to be mindful of the impact on ticket prices.
Mr Dillon
Supporters’ trusts and football fan bodies across the country support the establishment of a regulator, because they can see what the greater good is. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, even if there was a small increase in ticket prices, fans across the country would rather that there was a regulator tackling the systematic issues of football and accept that a small charge might be added to tickets? Their driver is for fairness across the game.
Mr French
That fans would be happy to accept higher prices is a brave argument to make, and it is not one that we are willing to accept. More broadly, we believe that Parliament must be able to scrutinise how much regulators, whether they are arm’s length, more direct or independent—however we label them—cost taxpayers and, in this case, fans. We believe that the sovereignty of this House demands a transparent report that Parliament and the public can analyse. We must understand the impact on ticket prices for fans. As Conservatives, we will stick up for fans today.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 5th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFootball Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 June 2025 - (5 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members, please, to switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee room. We will now continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 10
state of the game report
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 10, page 7, line 8, leave out “18” and insert “12”.
This amendment would require the first State of the Game Report to be published within 12 months of the Bill passing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 10, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
This amendment would require all subsequent State of the Game Report to be published every 3 years.
Mr Betts
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I do not intend to have a long debate on amendment 9, because I am sure that the Minister will agree readily to my suggestion. At the least, would she agree to reflect on it? The state of the game report is core to what we are trying to do with the football regulator—to look at the state of the game, what the problems are and what needs to be done to change it. Therefore, getting that report in place as soon as possible is the intention of my amendment. Why wait 18 months if it can be done in 12 months? I do not know what the regulator will consider and how long it will have to do so, but its primary job to begin with will be to look at this issue. Twelve months should be completely adequate.
In some ways, my second point is more important. Football does change, like the rest of society, and circumstances in football change, so I do not think it is entirely reasonable to say to the regulator, “Once you’ve done your job, you can sit back and wait another five years before coming to look at the issues again.” Three years seems a much more proportionate time. The Minister will probably tell me that five years is the end time, and the regulator could look at it in the meantime if it so wanted. Perhaps I am anticipating what she is going to say.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member is seeking to do, but I am slightly concerned that perhaps he rolled over before he even rose to his feet, and will not press his amendment to a Division.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. My hon. Friend is pushing for 12 months, and I have a lot of sympathy for what he is trying to do because it needs to be quick so that the regulator can start to take the right decisions about the future of game. However, does he agree that what is in the Bill is a significant improvement on what was in the last Bill, which I believe was three years rather than the 18 months that is before us?
Mr Betts
Absolutely. I accept that the Government have been listening to the arguments—not all Governments do, but this one clearly have. That is an important step forward. One of my worries, which we will look at further when we come to later clauses on the distribution of funding, the effect of parachute payments and the role that they may play and for how long, is that unless we give the regulator slightly stricter time periods, we could get to the end of this Parliament and find that nothing has changed.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My concern when I read the legislation was that five years is one Parliament. One report per Parliament feels like the regulator is being quite lackadaisical when it comes to producing reports. I hope that there can be a more regular publication on the state of the game, given its centrality to life in our country.
Mr Betts
Absolutely. I ask the Minister just to think about it. As my hon. Friend just said, the current provision is one report per Parliament. We can look back over the past five years and see that a lot has changed—there is a lot more money in the game—and if the regulator is going to be there, its main role will be to look at this issue. Allow, encourage and make it do that a bit more quickly. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment today, could she at least indicate that she might give it further thought and have discussions about it before Report stage?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—it is appropriate that you are chairing given that, as I understand it, the road to Wembley runs right through your constituency. I will say only that we support both amendments. The principles that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East stated apply, and more regular reporting will clearly help the regulator to hold itself and clubs to account. On whether it should be 12 or 18 months, I think the sooner it is done, the better, and then we can get on with sorting out the state of football.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler—a half-time substitute in today’s proceedings. I will speak briefly to the amendment. I completely understand the objective that he is seeking to nudge the Government towards, which he explained well. The obvious question for the Minister is whether more frequent reporting—three years rather than five years—would mean additional costs. I await the Minister’s response, but I understand that the hon. Member is not seeking to press his amendment to a vote.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend for his amendment.
The state of the game report will be a key study into the structure and dynamics of the industry. It will help to build an evidence base to inform the regulator’s approach and decision making. I therefore recognise the intent behind my hon. Friend’s well-meaning amendments.
The state of the game report needs to be produced promptly, but it also needs to be a robust study. The timeframes set out in the Bill balance the importance of a timely first report with giving the regulator time to undertake the necessary in-depth analysis. The regulator will need to publish its first report as soon as possible or, as my hon. Friend outlined, within 18 months of the competitions in scope of regulation being specified by the Secretary of State, as an absolute maximum. For subsequent reports, a maximum of five years between publications will encourage the regulator to take a more long-term look. That should minimise unnecessary burdens on the industry and better align with the timelines for existing industry processes, such as commercial agreements. The regulator will still have the discretion—as my hon. Friend anticipated—to publish subsequent reports sooner if it considers it appropriate to do so.
I cannot accept my hon. Friend’s amendments to reduce the timings further. He asked me to go away and reflect on them, but I do not want to give him any false hope. We have put careful consideration into the time limits, which were changed from the previous Bill. They are an absolute maximum. We have had a number of conversations with the various leagues and stakeholders, and we are confident that they are the right time limits. We have made it clear that the regulator has the power and discretion to publish sooner, and we would very much hope that that would be the case for the first report in particular. For those reasons, I cannot accept his amendments.
Mr Betts
I will not press the amendments to a vote, but I want to encourage the Minister on this point. As she said, the regulator can come back to the state of the game report before five years. In doing so, would the regulator be encouraged to take account of any views or concerns from the leagues and clubs that are being regulated, and from fans’ groups? If there was a real concern that things were changing fundamentally, would the regulator be encouraged to come back and reflect on whether a state of the game report should be done more quickly?
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, absolutely. We have talked about light-touch regulation throughout the Bill. The regulator has the ability to go sooner, in both its first report and subsequent ones, so we hope that there will be ongoing conversations with all the affected parties. If something happens, the regulator has that power and we would expect it to react. That is why we are not being prescriptive.
Mr Betts
That is a really helpful response. It says to the regulator, “These are your timeframes, but if things change, you should listen to the views and voices of the stakeholders in the game,” and something could be done more quickly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 10, page 7, line 22, at end insert—
“(iia) supporters trusts, fan groups and individual fans;”.
This amendment adds fans and fan organisations to the list of groups that the IFR must consult about a state of the game report.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the heart of football, the fans are remembered and properly considered, and that their voices are heard throughout the Bill. The state of the game report is a key output of the new regulator. It will provide comprehensive assessment of how football is functioning. It will help to set the direction of future policy and regulation, and will be a key measure of accountability for the sport as a whole. Given that, it is essential that fans should have a say.
Week in, week out, fans give their time, money and hearts to the clubs that they love, and yet too often they are the last to be consulted and the first to be overlooked when decisions are made about the future of our national game. The amendment is about changing that. It is about ensuring that the voices of supporters are formally recognised in the process of shaping the game’s future.
Supporters trusts play a key role here. They are often the bridge between clubs and fans, with a working relationship on both sides. They are well placed to represent fans’ views in a constructive and organised way. I recently met STAR, the Supporters Trust at Reading, which represents Reading FC, the closest professional league club to my constituency. Over the years, I have been to many games as a fan, and I have seen at first hand how passionate and committed the supporters are to improve the club and represent their fellow fans. Supporters trusts such as STAR are well placed to act as that bridge between the clubs and their fanbase.
We also recognise that not every fan may agree with their trust. That is why the amendment also allows for individual fans to be heard directly where necessary. It is vital that the Bill is amended to ensure that the independent football regulator listens to supporters when assessing the health and direction of the game through the state of the game report. By formally including fans and their organisations in the consultation process, we ensure that their lived experience, insight and passion are properly reflected in how the game is monitored and improved.
Mr French
The amendment, as explained by the hon. Gentleman, seeks to add supporters trusts, fan groups and individual fans to the list of those whom the independent football regulator must consult about the state of the game report. We have absolutely no problem with the principle of consulting fans in that context, and we would expect the football regulator to wish to do so in the due course of its business, for reasons we explained in other parts of the Bill. I suppose there might be some concern about how long the consultation would take if it had to consult every individual fan, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but we will await the Minister’s comments to understand that in the context slightly more.
Mr Betts
Briefly, I think we are going back to a very similar discussion to the one that we have just had, but would the Minister expect—without this going on the face of the Bill—the regulator to consult fans, in particular the Football Supporters’ Association? It has done a brilliant job. It was party to the fan-led Crouch review, and it has provided a great deal of assistance in framing this legislation. I hope that the association would be seen as part of the consultation process when the regulator comes to do that.
Stephanie Peacock
The state of the game report is expected to be a key piece of work that the regulator produces on the basis of extensive research and consultation. The Bill sets out a few parameters. What is included in the state of the game report, and therefore who is relevant to consult, are up to the regulator’s discretion, as the expert, allowing the report to evolve over time. The Bill therefore does not set out an exhaustive list of who to consult, and nor would we want it to.
Throughout the Bill, however, and especially where it states that the regulator should consult other relevant persons, we expect that those affected by the decisions of the regulator, such as fans, players and representative groups, would be included when appropriate. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East directly, we absolutely would expect those groups to be taken into consideration. That is made clear in the regulatory principle set out in clause 8.
Joe Robertson
I appreciate that we have a situation where one of the Minister’s Back Benchers is seeking assurances in this Committee, but does she accept that is not the equivalent of having something written into the Bill? With the greatest respect, if it is not in the Bill, her assurances here on what she expects from the football regulator is only her expectation—it is nothing more certain.
Stephanie Peacock
I remind the hon. Gentleman that part of the purpose of a Bill Committee is to give our intention as Parliament. Yes, I can give those assurances and I have done so at every step of the way.
Stephanie Peacock
I will take a further intervention, but I have not actually answered the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point. I want to answer it, if he gives me the chance.
Joe Robertson
It is a fundamental principle of lawmaking that, when interpreting the law, judges or anyone else do not go and look at what a Minister might have said in Hansard. I appreciate that she may have a long career, but the Minister will change at some point, and the law has to stand, potentially, for a very long time.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman shouts his CV from a sedentary position.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Members of the Committee may have heard of the case Pepper v. Hart, which showed that courts do look at what is said in Parliament. What we say here does matter.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. The intention of the regulatory principle is not to list every possible stakeholder that the regulator should ever engage during the course of regulation. That would be a slippery slope to an enormous list that risks missing persons off. Rather, the broader group of those affected by decisions are captured by this provision, even if they are not explicitly mentioned. That is why I am very pleased to give those assurances to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East.
Mr Dillon
I am grateful to the Minister for her response, and I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield South East for drawing that conclusion from the Minister in his useful remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The state of the game report will allow the regulator to better understand the finances and economics of the industry and its individual clubs. This, in turn, will inform the regulator’s approach and decision making across the regulatory framework.
Clause 10 requires the regulator to publish the report and sets out the topics that it must cover, including an overview of the main issues affecting English football and whether any features of the industry are jeopardising the regulator’s ability to deliver its objectives. These are deliberately broad and non-specific topics, affording the regulator some discretion as to what to cover. In essence, this means that the regulator can cover any matter that it considers relevant at the time, providing it relates to the functions of the Bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide further reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East on his earlier amendment. We would expect at this stage for it to include distributions, and powers lie within the Bill for the regulator to do that. I want to put that on record once again, further to our earlier debate. It will depend on which issues and features of the market are relevant to its objectives and the regulatory regime at any given time. However, the report is still constrained by its link to only matters relevant to the regulator’s function, so I reassure the Committee that this cannot be an avenue for scope creep.
The clause also requires the regulator to publish its first report no longer than 18 months after the competitions and scope of the regulation have been specified by the Secretary of State, as we have discussed. Subsequent reports must be published at least every five years after this but, as we have just debated, they could be more frequent if the regulator considers it appropriate. These timeframes balance the importance of a timely first report with giving the regulator time to undertake the necessary in-depth analysis.
Finally, the clause sets out clear consultation requirements, including an open process of inviting suggestions about the issues to be included in the report, as well as targeted consultation on a draft report, which I hope speaks to some of the comments from the hon. Member for Newbury on his previous amendment.
Mr French
I do not want to rehash the debate we had before the lunch break. We will press amendment 122 to a vote under a future clause, but we are disappointed that the Government are not willing to accept amendment 123. As we explained before the break, Conservative Members are very concerned that the regulator may impact ticket prices even further. We were calling for transparency in the state of the game report for fans and for Parliament so that they could understand the impact of the regulator on ticket prices for fans. We are disappointed that that amendment was not accepted. I appreciate the further comments that the Minister made, but I would like her to consider that in the future.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman said that he would not rehash the debate, but somewhat did. I have made my argument clear: ticket pricing is a commercial decision, and the Government have gone further by adding a consultation. We have nothing more to add on that topic; it has been fully debated.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Football governance statement
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 11, page 7, line 41, at end insert—
“(7) No football governance statement may have effect unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”.
This amendment would require the football governance statement to be approved by Parliament before it could have effect.
As we know, clause 11 makes provision for the Secretary of State, whoever that may be in the coming months, to issue a statement on issues related to football and, specifically, to the Government’s regulator. While the statement is not a binding one, it walks a very fine line and could be interpreted as political interference in the governance of football. As we have already heard when deliberating on clause 7, that is a very real issue with real-life implications for English football and English clubs.
I do not want to get bogged down in the earlier debate, but I ask the Minister to accept the fact that, aside from the context of the Bill, if UEFA or FIFA deem the Government to be exerting influence on how football is run in a way that compromises the independence of football associations and clubs in line with their statutes, they can, and perhaps will, take action to exclude the nation’s teams and clubs from competition. Irrespective of the Bill, if FIFA or UEFA believe that there is Government interference in football, there is a risk that clubs could be kicked out of European competitions.
Stephanie Peacock
No one is disputing that. We are clear that the Bill does not stray into that. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, in his Government’s iteration of the Bill, the regulator had to have due regard to foreign and trade policy. We took that out, further strengthening the independence of the independent football regulator.
Mr French
I genuinely thank the Minister for clarifying. We have to understand the context in which the Bill is operating. As I said earlier, the Bill is being made not in isolation, but in a complex international football ecosystem. We have to be mindful of that in everything that we do in this Committee and in the legislation that goes forward. Will the Minister therefore accept that, even if she does not believe that it will happen, if her regulator is perceived to be exerting influence and undermining the independence of English football, both international governing bodies will exclude English teams? I want to confirm that the Government understand those risks.
Much like the Secretary of State’s failure to declare her interests in relation to her appointee to the chairmanship of the regulator, who we know donated to her, this is about the perception of undue influence and the impact that will have on how the independence of English football is viewed internationally. If UEFA and FIFA perceive that there is undue influence from whoever the Government of the day may be, they will act, as I explained already with the example of Greek football in 2006. I hope that, as the Secretary of State has now done, the Prime Minister will make sure to declare any relevant interests, as we know that the chairman also donated to his campaign.
I believe that the Minister confirmed that she understands that there is a real risk that we have to be mindful of and that if the regulator breached independence, the entirety of English clubs’ participation in Europe, and the jobs and significant revenues that come alongside that, would be at stake. That is why I have tabled amendment 113, which would require the football governance statement prepared by the Secretary of State to be approved by Parliament before it could have effect. That is a vital safeguard to prevent the perception that any Government of any colour have direct influence over the regulator.
Mr Dillon
The shadow Minister may be coming to this point. His amendment states,
“No football governance statement may have effect unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament”,
but on the other hand he argues for more independence for the regulator. Surely Parliament and, by extension, political parties having to vote for a resolution would introduce more politics into the independent regulator.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention, but I am speaking very clearly about the interference of Government in football. That is very different from how Parliament acts in creating this statute and being able to check that the regulator is not putting clubs at risk, as I have said before. It is about Parliament having its say, rather than just delegating powers to the Secretary of State of the day.
By requiring that Parliament approve the statement, my amendment would ensure two things. First, there will be proper scrutiny of the Government and their policy. Mr Speaker has recently had to remind the Leader of the House, because of the way the Government have continued to ignore it, of paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code, which states:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”
The amendment would require the Government to come the House to present and defend their policy, instead of hiding behind media briefings or social media posts.
Secondly, the amendment would help to mitigate UEFA’s and FIFA’s concerns about the direct influence of Government over the independence of English football. Accepting the amendment and inserting Parliament into the equation would make the regulator much more palatable for the international governing bodies.
I hope that members of the Committee will accept the amendment for what it is: an attempt to ensure that no Government of any colour can be the cause of English football’s exclusion from European or international competitions. There will come a day—the sooner the better, in my opinion—that the Labour party is no longer in government. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members must therefore be realistic, practical and honest about the situation. When there is a different Government in place, will they accept the risk of that Government being the reason that the Three Lions cannot play in the World cup, or the reason that English clubs—from Cheltenham to Barnsley or Welling, or perhaps Sheffield Wednesday —cannot compete in European competitions? That might seem a remote prospect at the moment, but it is the ultimate aim of every club to be in such competitions. That is at risk without this amendment.
If hon. Members are being honest with themselves, their constituents and football fans across the country, the answer will be clear, and they should support my amendment to help to protect English football and give Parliament a greater say.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment, but I am not sure that his remarks spoke much to the detail of it. I remind him that this part of the Bill has not been changed since its previous iteration under the last Government. He has once again made his well-rehearsed argument about UEFA, but there is no risk in that regard. We have been very clear. UEFA and FIFA are happy with the Bill as drafted, and the FA has made that clear to Members of both Houses.
The purpose of the clause is to allow the Secretary of State the power to prepare a football governance statement that sets out the Government’s policies on issues related to football governance, where these are consistent with the regulator’s statutory remit. We believe that this is an important tool that the Government can use to set out their priorities in football governance, similar to the way that the Government give a strategic steer to the Competition and Markets Authority and other regulators.
We drafted the provision with appropriate deference to Parliament. Any statement must be consistent with the purpose of the Bill and the regulator’s objectives as set out in the Bill. The Committee has already considered that purpose and those objectives and has approved them. Parliament has set out the statutory remit, but it is appropriate that the Government of the day are able to set out their policy priorities within that well-defined remit without requiring parliamentary approval each time. There are also restrictions on when statements can be made, to ensure that they are not overused. Any statement must be published and laid before Parliament, so Parliament can hold the Secretary of State accountable for its content. Requiring the Secretary of State to gain approval for this statement would add an extra burden to Parliament.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I struggle to understand what might be contained in the Government policy statements. The Minister is steeped in this legislation, so must have discussed this in the past. Can she give the Committee an indication of what sort of thing might be covered?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He was new to this place at the election, so he perhaps is not familiar with the previous Bill, but as I have said, this Bill is the same as the Conservative version. On the specifics of the statement, I do not want to pre-empt what may be in there, but it could be, for example, the idea that the Government focus on growth; we have that in the objectives. I do not want to anticipate what could be, but let us be clear: this is about broad objectives, not specifics or operations, and any statement that is not consistent with Parliament’s intention in passing the Bill, as set out in the regulator’s statutory objectives and in the purpose clause of the Bill, could be challenged legally. Similar discussions have taken place in both the House of Lords—the other place—and the House of Commons, and we expect the statement to reflect the Government’s position on the regulator’s use of its powers.
Mr French
I stand to be corrected; we will look at Hansard, but one of the votes that we have had already in Committee was on an Opposition amendment to make sure that growth was clearly defined in that objective in the Bill, and it was rejected by the Government, so I am slightly confused. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne has asked for clarification of what might be in the report, and the Minister seems to be contradicting a vote that has already happened. Could she clarify what she means?
Stephanie Peacock
I can absolutely. I said I did not want to be drawn on the specifics of the statement; I do not want to pre-empt what is in there, but I tried to give an illustration without being drawn into the specifics. If, say, there is a general election and a new Government take power, a new Secretary of State may want to give broad direction. We as this new Labour Government have made it very clear that growth is a focus. We know that is in the Bill, so that is why I thought it was a sensible illustration to give in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, but I want to be very clear that I do not want to be drawn into specifics, because this could cover the approach with regulation in, for example, minimising burdens on clubs, which would tie in with that.
I simply do not think this amendment is necessary. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw it.
Mr French
I must admit I am slightly confused by the answer that was given. I expected the Government to refuse my amendment, but I am genuinely confused about the direction of travel now. I explained the causes of the amendment. The answer that the Minister has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne seems to contradict—other Members are nodding—votes that have already taken place on this Bill. Without rehashing the whole exchange, we wanted to put in as an objective of the regulator economic growth and growing the game of football, for very plausible reasons. The debate was around the word “sustainability”—I appreciate that you were not in the Chair at that point, Ms Butler. To hear the Minister describe the objective that was voted down by the Labour party as a key part of Government policy—that was the argument we made earlier; we could not understand why the amendment was voted against—is confusing. We are genuinely confused, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 11 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue a statement on the Government’s policies related to football governance. A football governance statement can only include issues within the scope of the regulator’s regulatory regime. It can be revised every five years, or more frequently only if a general election has taken place, as I illustrated just now; if there has been a significant change in Government policy relating to football; or if the Secretary of State considers the statement is inconsistent with the purpose of the Bill or the regulator’s objectives. It cannot be used to direct the regulator’s day-to-day operations, which protects the regulator’s independence.
The general duty set out in clause 7 requires the regulator to have regard to any football governance statement when exercising its functions under the Bill. For the Government to issue such a statement is common practice used with other regulators. In its detail, as discussed, it could cover the approach to regulation—for instance, minimising burdens on clubs—or the Government’s growth agenda.
The clause is an appropriate and proportionate power that will help give assurance to the Government and Parliament that the regulator acts within its regulatory scope and has regard to strategic issues. It does not interfere with any daily operations or affect the independence of the regulator.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Guidance published by the IFR
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
To ensure that the regulatory regime is as effective and efficient as possible, the football industry needs to understand what is expected of it. That is why this clause empowers the regulator to prepare and publish guidance on the exercise of its function. The guidance will be crucial to translate the legal framework in the Bill into a detailed and practical explanation of the regulator’s regime. It will ensure that the industry understands the regulatory system, what to expect from the regulator and what is expected of it. Not only will that reduce burdens, but it should improve compliance.
The clause sets out that the regulator must publish guidance about the exercise of its functions under specific sections of the Bill. It also commits the regulator to publish guidance about the exercise of any of its other functions. The regulator must consult any persons that it considers appropriate before publishing guidance for the first time and before revising guidance in the future, unless the revisions are minor. This will ensure the regulator is taking into account the views of all relevant stakeholders and experts when preparing its guidance.
Clause 13 permits the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance on the regulator’s functions. If needed, this guidance offers an opportunity to provide some additional detail on the regime that was not included in the Bill.
The industry and fans alike have been clear that they do not want to see ongoing Government involvement in football, as we have debated in this Committee. That is why the regulator must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, but is not obliged to follow it. That is also why the Secretary of State may not revise this guidance any more frequently than every three years. This will deliver an appropriate arm’s length role for the Government, but avoid any risk of the regulator becoming a political football. The Secretary of State must consult both the regulator and anyone else they consider appropriate before publishing or revising any guidance, and must lay the guidance before Parliament. I beg to move that these changes—I mean clauses—stand part of the Bill.
Mr French
The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not pick her up on that slip of the tongue, given I made a few of my own this morning with some of the tongue twisters that my assistant put into my speeches.
As we have just heard, clause 12 requires the Government’s regulator to publish guidance about the exercise of its functions as set out in clauses 21 to 25 and the outcomes it seeks to achieve, and to consult appropriate persons before publishing that guidance.
I have a few questions. Will the Minister clarify when she expects her regulator to have translated its powers and duties into a detailed, cohesive and practical explanation of the IFR regime, and what she believes detailed and practical mean for the clubs, so they can understand that?
Clause 13 permits the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance on the Government’s regulator’s exercise of its functions under the regulatory regime. This guidance would aid the Government’s regulator in interpreting the intention of legislation when designing and implementing its regulatory regime. It would be non-binding, but the Government’s regulator must have regard to it when exercising its functions.
There was an interesting debate between two lawyers on this Committee about where those lines are drawn. They have both made their arguments for the record, so I will not go back into that, but the clause does stipulate that revisions to guidance may not be made
“more frequently than every three years”
unless there is a revision to the Bill, or the revision is pre-agreed upon between the Secretary of State and the Government’s regulator. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult both the Independent Football Regulator and any appropriate persons before publishing or revising any guidance and laying it before Parliament, unless the revisions are minor.
The Minister will be aware that in the previous sitting I pressed her about that parliamentary role; I will now do so again. Might we have some insight into where, when the reports come back to Parliament, the Government plan to publish them? On Tuesday I asked the Minister whether that would be the role of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, or of the Public Accounts Committee, given the financial aspects and the costs, and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, or whether that would be on the Floor of the House. We really would appreciate, as the official Opposition, some guidance on where the Government plan to publish those reports, so that everyone in the House may have a clear understanding of the direction of travel and where those reports will be available to be read.
While the guidance may not be binding, the clause highlights the blurred lines between Government and regulator, particularly when the appointee was a political appointee, as we know. How will the Minister ensure that any guidance published by the Government is not interpreted as Government intervention, and that the regulator remains free to act independently while not bringing in those risks that we have discussed today?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. There is no timeline on guidance, but it will be for the regulator to publish. We expect it to be done in a timely fashion, ahead of clubs having to engage with the system.
On the shadow Minister’s question about parliamentary engagement, I wrote back to him this morning; I believe that went out this morning. The obvious Select Committee is the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but it is not for me as the Minister, but for the individual Select Committees to determine whether it is relevant, and whether they would like to invite the regulator to give evidence or to engage with any of their inquiries.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Annual Report
Amendment proposed: 122, page 9, line 3, at end insert—
“(aa) the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets, and”—(Mr French.)
This amendment would require the IFR to include in its annual report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 134, in clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert—
“(aa) the cumulative impact of the costs imposed on clubs through compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime, and”
This amendment would require the IFR to include in the annual report an account of the financial costs imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.
Let us see whether we get a different outcome on this vote, although I will not hold my breath—I had a wry smile from at least one Member. The amendment seeks to insert reference to the cumulative impact of the costs for clubs from compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime. The clause makes provision for the Government’s regulator to publish an annual report
“As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year”.
I will start with a question to the Minister: what does she envision an unreasonable delay to be in the submission of said report? I think we all agree that six months could be unreasonable, for example. I do not ask for a specified time limit of the Minister or in the Bill, although it might be reasonable for the Government to include one; I ask for a rough indication of how long fans will have to wait every season to see what the Government’s regulator is doing. I hope she will give such an indication today in Committee.
Subsection (2), as drafted, lists what the Government’s regulator must include in its annual report. However, we believe that that list is incomplete and requires the amendment tabled in my name. I moved the amendment to require the Government’s regulator to include in its annual report an account of the financial cost imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.
Increases in regulation have costs for businesses, regardless of the industry or of the intent. The Government and their regulator will ensure that all clubs, as businesses too, will see their costs increase. We have had a lot of debate about where that cost may end up, but I do not think anyone disputes that the costs will rise. First, costs might come from the Chancellor’s tax rises, which we have discussed—whether that is national insurance, wage increases or the energy costs that clubs have to pay. At the elite level, people may be less concerned if they think about the finances of a Premier League club, but such costs have a bigger impact on those lower down the pyramid, all the way to the National League, which will be in scope of the regulator. As we have said consistently, we are very much concerned about the impact on football’s finances and the negative decisions that may result for fans and clubs around the country.
Secondly, but linked to that, there is the ever-increasing cost of red tape, not just that introduced by the Bill, but more broadly. Clubs have to comply with the regulations of the leagues that they play in and of the FA, and now they will have a regulator as well. There are a number of compliance costs, and other legal matters that have been discussed in this House in more recent months will also add cost to clubs up and down the country.
Football might have changed over the years, but I am afraid that the Labour party has not. We believe that the Government have focused too much on their left wing, and left themselves exposed in the midfield and at the back.
Mr French
The hon. Gentleman liked that.
At the heart of the Bill is the ambition to secure the long-term sustainability of English football clubs across the pyramid. That is a commendable—perhaps even noble—objective. However, plain as day, as we have discussed, it will increase costs for every single fan across the country. We need to know how much that cost will be. As the Government attempt to deliver that goal, we must not lose sight of a fundamental truth: regulation is not free. Every new obligation, every form to be filled and every audit to be passed has a cost, financial and operational, that ultimately lands at the door of our football clubs and is then passed on, I am afraid, to fans.
As I have said in previous clauses, many clubs, in particular those in the lower leagues, already operate on a knife edge and in certain circumstances on a shoestring budget. For them, even modest extra compliance burdens can pose fundamental, existential challenges. Those in the lowest leagues—the National League and below—would welcome the improved odds of, for example, perhaps being able to compete in the EFL. As things stand, however, the National League 3UP campaign has been ignored.
The National League clubs that I have spoken to are keen for the 3UP campaign to be included, because they believe that closing the gap on competition should be a conversation not just between the regulator and this Committee about closing the gap between the EFL and the Premier League—a constant theme of our discussion—but about closing the gap at the bottom of the pyramid. Clubs in the National League would have an increased chance of getting into the English Football League. Given the number of clubs in the National League that were previously in the English Football League, we can all understand why the campaign has grown in momentum among the National League clubs. For any Members who were not aware of it, that is the 3UP campaign.
That is not helping the financial sustainability of the clubs that are fighting hard to return via promotion to the Football League or to be promoted for the first time—those that have lofty ambitions to go further up the pyramid. Those in the National League that are, as a direct result of their situation, most impacted by some of the new bills that have been imposed by various actions of the Government, deserve to be able to see why they have those costs and who is causing them. The amendment gets to the heart of that.
At the moment, most fans have an owner they can point to—and blame, if they wish, for their financial failures, as well as their successes on the field. They can campaign to get them out, as Manchester United fans continue to do regarding the Glazer family, for example, or they can sing their praises from the rooftops, as Newcastle fans have done in recent months after their historic success on the pitch. However, this Government’s regulator will blur the lines about who has caused financial instability, because the actions of the regulator will not be as transparent as we believe they could be.
James Naish
I am conscious that we will have several more days of discussion, so I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify exactly how this body would have been funded under the legislation of the previous Government. He keeps talking about the costs of the regulator under this Government, but how did he think it would have been funded under the previous Government?
Mr French
That is obviously not what this amendment is about. It is about transparency. It is not about the overall cost, but about the transparency of the cost. The hon. Gentleman asks about how things would have been funded before, but we have to accept that we are in different economic circumstances. A number of costs have impacted clubs already. I am talking about the cumulative impact of Government policy—the Minister has heard me say this in a number of debates, including in the debate on swimming yesterday—on clubs from the elite level all the way down to the grassroots level. The point is that there are now extra costs from the regulator, on top of the national insurance increase, which we think has probably been the biggest change, the changes to business rates calculations, which have negatively impacted a number of businesses, and wage increases. Hon. Members may or may not agree with those costs, but we are talking about their cumulative impact.
Because it is ultimately funded by the clubs, the regulator will increase those costs. The hon. Gentleman talks about how we perceived it would be paid for. The clubs will pay the costs of the regulator—that has not changed—but we are trying to get at the cumulative impact. We want transparency about that impact on clubs, including for Parliament, so that we, as hon. Members who represent constituencies around the country, can have informed debates about the impact on English football of the decisions that we make in this House. As Members of this House, it is not unreasonable to want to understand the impact of our and the regulator’s decisions. Whether or not hon. Members agree with the amendments, they make it quite clear that we are calling for transparency on the costs of the regulator.
Lincoln Jopp
It is important for the House to understand that once an organisation is in the hands of the regulator, it has no choice. I was a director of a company that was applying for an operating licence from a national regulator. It cost millions of pounds, and we never achieved it—we tried three times, and never got there. As long as the regulator is doing its regulatory work, that is okay as far as it is concerned. There can be circumstances in which regulators, as long as things are being done by the rulebook, do not care about the growth of their industry. The amendment is a reasonable counterbalance to that, and would ensure that the regulator understands the financial burden it is putting on teams.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his experience of regulation more generally. He highlights an important point about growth, which we were trying to get at with our earlier amendment and which we have discussed again this afternoon. Unless the regulator has a clear growth mandate—as I said in the previous debate, I understand that the Chancellor is consulting regulators for growth ideas—it may not seek to stick to it, and it could therefore become obsessed with other issues and regulations. This amendment is not trying to alter what the regulator does; it is just trying to ensure that we have information on costs so that Members of this House can understand the impact. Again, I believe that is a valuable tool for us to have.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is talking about growth. Does he accept that growth has been included as a secondary duty in clause 7?
Mr French
I do accept that, but as we made clear in the earlier debate, we want growth to be included in the Bill as a primary objective. The hon. Lady has just said that it is a secondary objective, but why is it not a primary objective of the regulator to try to grow the economy of football? We have previously argued that it should be, and I do not want to rehash that whole debate, but that is the distinction that we are making. The hon. Lady quoted the secondary objective, but we have said that it should be primary.
Melanie Onn
On that point, the fact that growth is in the Bill means that it is a clear obligation on the regulator. The expectation is that the regulator would then be obliged to consider the desirability of avoiding
“adverse effects on the financial growth of…English football.”
That seems perfectly plain in the Bill.
Mr French
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady. That is obviously her opinion, and we have made a counter-argument and point of debate, which is what this House is for. We believe that growth should be a primary objective. Before the break, we also outlined at length one of the risks of adverse impacts on growth, which was her second point. We have substantially highlighted the impact that English clubs being excluded from European competitions, or the national team being excluded from international competitions, would have on the growth of the game. We have made that argument quite clear. Government Members may not agree with those risks or the points that I have made, but we have been quite clear on why we believe that growth should have been included in the primary objectives.
I will return to the amendment, because I am at risk of getting a yellow card this afternoon. We believe that this Government’s regulator will blur the lines on who has caused financial instability, as the actions of the regulator are being kept behind closed doors unless this amendment is agreed to. Not only have the Government appointed one of their Labour donors as the regulator’s chair, as we have already heard, but they are now trying to deny English football fans the information to which they are entitled to judge for themselves the success of the Government’s regulator in delivering financial stability, or instability. For supporters, increased costs mean higher ticket prices, fewer community programmes and cutbacks to the very things that make their clubs more than just businesses. They are at the heart of the community, which I believe most people will agree with.
We have already seen the regulator begin to grow in size. While the Minister refused to confirm the number of staff that she expected her regulator to end up employing, she answered my written question after our deliberations in this Committee concluded, which I appreciate. The Minister confirmed that, as of 1 June, the shadow football regulator had 42 employees, 11 of which had previously been employed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and 2 had formerly advised the Department. I make that point because the shadow regulator has already seen a 10% increase in headcount since the Minister in the other place answered a similar question back in January. We know that the Government are hiring more people, and we are still not clear on how big it will become or what the subsequent costs will be.
If that is the direction of travel, transparency on the cost burdens to clubs is not a nice-to-have but absolutely essential to understand how successful an impact the regulator is having. My amendment would introduce a simple but essential safeguard so that Parliament, clubs and, most importantly, fans could see in plain terms what this Government’s regulator was really costing. That scrutiny and transparency will encourage restraint, discipline and proportionality in the way in which the Government’s regulator operates. That, in turn, will help reduce its burden on clubs and thus make football more sustainable—I believe that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne in his earlier intervention.
We do not want to replace one form of financial instability with another, where well-meaning but poorly monitored regulation drives costs even higher, disproportionately affecting those least able to bear them. This is not about opposition for opposition’s sake; it is about delivering sustainable regulation that supports, not stifles, the game that we all cherish. For that, we need proper accountability of the regulator.
As I said on Tuesday, I do not believe that many people think that regulation has been done well in this country over the past 20 years. We can talk about whom we want to blame, but I argue strongly—this is not a party political point—that regulation has not been done well and that Parliament has devolved too much power to unelected people who are not held accountable for their decisions. I want to avoid that at this point in the Bill. We are setting up a new regulator—I am sure that will happen—so let us ensure that it is accountable to this House, that we do not make the same mistakes as in the past, and that we have accountability and transparency on cost and direction of travel.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler.
The shadow Minister, as ever, is a strong advocate for the fans and has set out a compelling case for supporting the amendment. I will not rehash all the arguments, but it is about transparency and reporting—indeed, the clause that the amendment seeks to change is about reporting. Clearly, the Government believe that an annual report should be made or that would not be provided for in the Bill. The report must include a “summary of the activities” undertaken by the regulator, with reference to a financial year, and yet there is nothing about that report’s including the financial impact, which would be fairly usual in a report by any organisation compelled to do one year on year in the interests of transparency.
We debated amendment 122 earlier, and that was more specifically about the impact of the regulator’s activity on match ticket prices. I recall that one of the Liberal Democrat Members did not support that on the basis that the cost of administering the regulator would, if divided up as on his fag packet between match tickets and clubs, add up to a small amount. Amendment 134 is much more compelling because it is about the cumulative impact of the costs of complying with the regulatory regime. It could be the case that the actual budget of the regulator remained reasonably contained, while the regulation that the regulator creates and its obligations on football clubs could balloon.
In my view, that is why the regulator should be compelled each year to include in the report the financial impact of its regulation and the full range of its activities, in so far as they have an implication for football clubs. If it creates a regulatory burden and hence a cost burden on clubs, there will always be the worry that that will be passed on to fans. Whether an individual member of the Committee believes that the regulator is a good thing, or that the cost is bearable, and whatever their view on how much cost is bearable, at the very least the regulator should be reporting this each year, so that the public and Members in this place in the future can form their views. This is a basic argument about transparency, and no one should seek to assist the regulator in not being transparent in financial matters. For that reason, I will back the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment. He gave a wide-ranging speech, and I will focus my remarks on the amendment itself, but I will first respond to a couple of points that were made. Towards the end of his speech, he commented that regulation has not been done well for the past 20 years—perhaps I should remind him of who was in government for most of that time. [Interruption.] Indeed, the past 20 years. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East said that some members of the Committee may or may not think that the regulator is a good thing. But of course we all stood on a manifesto that included it, so I hope that most Members here think it a good idea; fans up and down the country certainly agree that it is.
In speaking to the amendment, I again remind the Committee that no changes have been made since the previous Bill. The Government agree that it is vital that the cost of regulation should not place an undue burden on clubs. That is why we have designed an agile and light-touch regulator that takes a collaborative approach with those it regulates. Unfortunately, the amendment could do the exact opposite of what I think it intends. If the regulator were to track and publish compliance costs every year, it would need all clubs to measure and report on that on an ongoing basis.
Lincoln Jopp
What makes the Minister think that clubs themselves would not, as a normal matter of course, be noting their compliance costs?
Stephanie Peacock
Clubs may well do that, absolutely, but the amendment goes further than is needed and I will continue to make the case as to why I simply do not think it is necessary. It could involve the lengthy and onerous process of identifying and separating compliance costs from their overall operational costs. Reporting on compliance costs would drive up those costs unnecessarily. The regulator and Department will already be required to undertake monitoring and evaluation of the impact of regulation; that includes the review of the Act by the Secretary of State as per clause 96. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment and I ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw it.
Mr French
We tabled the amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East explained, it is in the interest of driving transparency for fans and clubs, and for Members to see the effectiveness and impact of the regulator. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne explained, it is highly likely that most clubs captured by the top five leagues of the regulator will have reports in their board rooms that explain the costs of regulation and compliance costs. As I said earlier, they have to report on a variety of functions for their league credibility, so it is not unusual to expect them to be able to account for how much this extra regulation will cost, nor is it unusual to expect us to have transparency on the impact of the Government’s football regulator on the football pyramid from the bottom to the top. We will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 14 requires the regulator to report annually to Parliament on its activity for that year. As with all public bodies, the regulator must arrange for the report to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for purposes of transparency and scrutiny. The Secretary of State will have some flexibility to direct additional material to be included with the annual report. That will help ensure that the regulator captures all relevant information in a year, and allow the Government and Parliament to properly scrutinise its performance.
Stephanie Peacock
I do not believe so. I have written to the shadow Minister and will double-check the correspondence. The report will help to ensure that the regulator captures all relevant information in a year, thereby allowing the Government and Parliament to properly scrutinise its performance. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Operating licences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Support to clubs—
“(1) The IFR shall provide reasonable and proportionate assistance to—
(a) regulated clubs seeking to obtain a provisional club licence;
(b) clubs with a provisional club licence seeking a full club licence; and
(c) unregulated clubs who are reasonably likely to become regulated clubs in the next football season.
(2) The IFR shall provide reasonable and proportionate assistance to regulated clubs in their efforts to continue to comply with the conditions of their provisional club licence or full club licence.
(3) In fulfilling its duty under subsections (1) and (2), the IFR shall have regard to the factors listed in section 53(9).
(4) This assistance may come in the form of—
(a) financial support;
(b) training; and
(c) support staff.”
This new clause would require the IFR to provide assistance to football clubs transitioning to the new licence regime and to enable clubs continued compliance with its requirements.
New clause 6—Support to clubs—
“(1) The IFR shall provide reasonable and proportionate assistance to—
(a) regulated clubs seeking to obtain a provisional club licence;
(b) clubs with a provisional club licence seeking a full club licence; and
(c) unregulated clubs who are reasonably likely to become regulated clubs in the next football season.
(2) The IFR shall provide reasonable and proportionate assistance to regulated clubs in their efforts to continue to comply with the conditions of their provisional club licence or full club licence.
(3) This assistance may come in the form of—
(a) financial support;
(b) training;
(c) support staff; or
(d) temporary exemption from levy payments.”
This new clause will mandate a duty on the IFR to aid regulated clubs with compliance.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause introduces the licensing system. One of the regulator’s main responsibilities will be to operate a licensing system for football clubs through which the majority of its regulation will be delivered. If clubs do not have an operating licence, they will not be allowed to play. The licensing regime will cover all football clubs that have a team playing in any of the competitions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations—that is intended to be the top five leagues. The clause will require football clubs to have a licence to lawfully operate a team in any of the specified competitions.
The clause sets out the requirement for clubs to have a provisional or full operating licence, along with the regulator’s power to grant licences subject to clubs passing the relevant tests set out in the subsequent clauses. The licence will enable the regulator to regulate clubs through licence conditions set out later in the Bill. That will enable proportionate regulation tailored to clubs, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. An operating licence will specify which clubs the licence relates to, the team the club is operating and any conditions attached to the licence.
Let me set out how, broadly speaking, the licensing regime will work. The duties in part 5 will apply to regulated and formerly regulated clubs within the licensing regime, and will cover clubs that have been in scope within the previous 10 years, to prevent circumvention. We will debate that later in Committee. For a club to gain a provisional operating licence, the independent football regulator must be satisfied that the club operates a relevant team and will comply with the mandatory conditions and the free-standing duties. The independent football regulator need only be satisfied that the club will comply with the mandatory conditions; it will not need to comply at the time of the provisional licence test. A provisional licence can be issued for a maximum of three years, but the time can be shorter if the regulator determines that. The regulator can use discretionary licence conditions to bring a club’s standard up to the necessary threshold requirement level.
Let me set out the test for a full operating licence. The independent football regulator must be satisfied that a club meets the threshold requirements and will continue to comply with the mandatory conditions and with the free-standing duties, and the regulator must not have determined that a current owner or officer is unsuitable. We will, of course, go into further details on these matters as we move through the licensing regime, so I will not do so now. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr Betts
With new clause 2, tabled in my name, we come back to the other key issue in the Bill, aside from distribution: how clubs operate, how owners have in some cases badly operated them in the past, and how we can do more to help to control such situations. The issue of operating licences is, then, absolutely key.
Before anyone gets too worried, I should say that I have not been collaborating with the Lib Dems, although their new clause is very similar. Perhaps we have both been talking to Fair Game, an excellent organisation that has been trying to work with clubs and fans to improve the regulation and operation of football clubs.
The simple aim of new clause 2 is to ensure that the regulator provides help when it is needed. Premier League clubs are not going to need help and Championship clubs should not need help. The EFL says that clubs in Leagues One and Two are already required, under the EFL’s regulations, to provide the vast majority of the information that the regulator will need anyway, so they are doing so as a matter of course. The new clause would probably apply only to some National League clubs. The support may not be financial support; in some ways, for the relevant clubs, training and supporting staff is the key issue. There may not be anyone in the club with a working knowledge of some of the complications and the legalities of the legislation so, to avoid the club getting into difficulties, the new clause would require the regulator, in those circumstances, to help those clubs, in a reasonable and proportionate way, with the requirements of the licence conditions.
Max Wilkinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I reassure the Government Whips that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I have not been collaborating, but we have clearly been speaking to the same fans’ groups, who are very supportive of the Bill. There is a very simple principle here: some clubs may struggle with the regulatory burden, as has, I think, been expressed by all Members during the discussion. The way of solving that is not to take the steps that the Conservatives have suggested; it is for the regulator to take a reasonable view on how it might support those clubs.
New clause 6 may well not pass, but I hope that the Minister takes away the message to work with regulators, so that the regulator, when it is set up, is in a position to support the smaller clubs that have maybe only a few full-time members of staff, or even fewer than that. We back the expansion of the regulator to the sixth tier as well; in those circumstances, it would be particularly important that such support was available.
Mr French
That was a strange intervention.
New clause 2 and new clause 6 would require the independent football regulator to provide assistance to regulated clubs seeking to obtain a provisional licence, clubs with a provisional licence seeking a full licence, and unregulated clubs that are reasonably likely to become regulated in the next football season. The new clauses would also require the independent football regulator to provide reasonable and proportionate assistance to regulated clubs in their efforts to continue to comply with their licence conditions.
The sentiments behind both arguments are not bad ones. We have made strong arguments already about our concerns regarding costs for clubs lower down the pyramid. I do, however, question the contradiction of being concerned about clubs in National League South and North, but wanting to get them in the scope of the regulator—we disagree with that. I have a few questions about the new clauses that I hope either the hon. Member for Sheffield South East or the hon. Member for Cheltenham might be happy to answer, just so the Committee can understand.
Given that the new clauses would require the independent football regulator to provide reasonable and proportionate assistance, we would be interested to know what assistance those hon. Members think might be reasonable or proportionate for clubs to require, and whether the independent football regulator is to provide them in the different instances covered by the new clauses. How would the independent football regulator’s liabilities towards clubs under the new clauses be determined and enforced? How would it be funded? That would be a question that all clubs would ask.
In a feedback loop that I am sure the hon. Member for Sheffield South East is aware of through his chairmanship of the football all-party parliamentary group over many years, one of the arguments that a number of clubs make is, “Why should I pay for someone else to come and try to take my place in the league that I am in?” That is part of the competitive nature of football. Although there is cross-club working in a number of areas trying to help clubs, often, the same clubs are competing against each other. We would need a bit of clarity on how the additional provision of help would be paid for. Would the cost be passed on to other clubs? Leaving aside those questions about what that may look like in the future, we understand the sympathies expressed in the new clauses to try to help clubs further down the pyramid, so that they are not excluded based on the fact that they cannot afford to apply for a licence.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East and the hon. Member for Cheltenham for tabling new clauses 2 and 6. The Government recognise the intent behind them, and we agree that the regulator should help clubs to comply with regulation as much as is reasonably possible. It is in everyone’s interests for clubs to become compliant quickly and with as little additional burden as possible. It is vital that the regulator helps clubs get to grips with its regulatory regime, which is why we have been very clear that the regulator will operate an advocacy-first approach, and why provisions for a collaborative approach are already in the Bill.
For example, the regulatory principle of clause 8(b) encourages the regulator to co-operate and constructively engage with clubs. Regulatory principles (c) and (d) encourage the regulator to ensure that any action is proportionate to the benefits expected from it.
In relation to the specifics of the new clauses, we disagree with any provision that would require the regulator to provide financial assistance to clubs to comply with requirements imposed by the regulator. That would amount to redistribution by the back door, given that the Independent Football Regulator would be levying some clubs in order to provide financial assistance to others. That is not the regulator’s role, and we do not believe it should be. On training, the regulator can work with clubs to ensure that they fully understand the regulation and what is expected of them. Of course, in cases where this is necessary, the regulator can appoint a skilled person to assist the club in resolving issues in respect of a relevant infringement. For the reasons that I have outlined, I am unable to accept the new clauses and I hope that they will be—
Mr Dillon
I seek further clarification from the Minister. Subsection (1)(c) of both new clauses refers to
“unregulated clubs who are reasonably likely to become regulated clubs in the next football season.”
They would stand outside the remit of the Bill if unamended, but would the Minister’s view be that the regulator should engage with those clubs that may be just about to come into the regulated area?
Stephanie Peacock
That is a really good question. The regulator can engage with clubs outside of scope, such as those in the National League North and South, to assist with the application process. I hope that answer gives clarity. It is a very good question from the hon. Gentleman. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept the new clauses, and I hope that they will be withdrawn or not pressed.
Max Wilkinson
I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Application for provisional operating licence
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 16, page 10, line 10, leave out subsection (c).
This amendment prevents the IFR from requiring information from clubs in the other than the personnel statement and strategic business plan specified by the Act, when applying for a provisional operating licence.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 100, in clause 16, page 10, line 25, leave out subsection (b).
This amendment prevents the IFR from requiring information in the strategic business plan not specified by the Act.
Mr French
Clause 16 is about the application for provisional licences, and this debate builds on the previous debate about costs. The way in which clause 16 is currently drafted is a textbook example of how the Government have left the door open to scope creep from the regulator. This clause gives the Government’s politically led regulator the power to set its own rules on what documents clubs must provide when applying for a provisional operating licence. On the surface, this may sound like a mere procedural point, but it in fact is emblematic of a broader concern: the unchecked expansion of regulatory scope—scope creep—that could come to characterise this regime if we are not careful. In fact, it may no longer be appropriate to define it as “scope creep”, as there is nothing subtle or creeping about it. The Bill actively, in different places, encourages the Government’s new regulator to build its own football governance empire, as other regulators have done. It would be better now to define some of this risk of scope creep and to avoid such scope imperialism in the future.
That is why I tabled these two amendments. Amendment 99 would prevent the Government’s regulator from requiring information from clubs, other than the personnel statement and strategic business plan specified by the Act, when applying for a provisional operating licence. Amendment 100 would prevent the Government’s regulator from requiring information in the strategic business plan that is not specified by the Act.
At this early stage of the Bill Committee, I am already at risk of sounding like a broken record.
Mr French
I am sure the Government Whip appreciates my comments more than that. The Government’s Bill, alongside the unprecedented and seemingly unlimited powers that it grants to their regulator, is, as we have argued already, putting English football at risk. The Government have assured us that their politically led regulator will be proportionate and risk-based, but the Bill as drafted grants it significant scope to expand its own powers, with limited checks on that unaccountable and seemingly unstoppable expansion of power, and the Minister did say in her previous comments that Parliament will not get a vote on this, so Members need to be aware of this as we go forward. The Government’s regulator is in prime position to commit a regulatory land grab that would belong more in a war documentary than in a sport that is supposed to be independent of the state.
We have seen this before. Regulators rarely stick to their lane; just look at Ofcom, who attempted to remove former colleagues from their role as broadcasters. They were found to be in breach of their own rules, so Ofcom changed the rule. What is to stop this regulator doing the same? Over time, objectives change and bureaucracies grow. What begins as a modest remit to protect financial sustainability can turn into a permanent presence in the boardrooms of clubs, pushing even more conditions, even more reporting requirements, even more intervention —all in the name of “compliance”. We believe that that is dangerous for sport, as a general rule. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne also explained how his experience of regulations supports our concern.
Clause 16 allows the regulator to require whatever documents it deems “appropriate” for a provisional licence application. That may include business plans, financial forecasts, ownership structures, or other forms of club data. Crucially, the Bill does not limit what can be asked for. Nor does it require that these requests be proportionate, standardised, or even necessary to the specific risk posed for each club. We believe that this Government have written their regulator a bit of a blank cheque in this area—one that empowers them to define their regulator’s own administrative burden and impose it unilaterally on clubs without giving clubs a say in how that starts to look, going forward, or the issues that it may create in clubs. As I have commented and other Members have commented, that is a particular issue for clubs lower down the leagues, particularly those in League One and League Two, or the National League—clubs that already operate with small margins and stretched resources. We have to remember that while some of this legislation is clearly aimed at the top level—the Premier League level—all clubs will be required to provide documents to the regulator. We must remember that those smaller clubs that may not have big human resources departments will be required to present their homework. Forcing them to comply with excessive or bespoke documentation requirements—there could be uncertainty about what those requirements will look like, going forward—drawn up by a regulator that answers to no shareholders, no supporters and, once set up, only loosely to Parliament—no vote for Parliament—will hit those least able to absorb the resource costs and financial costs the hardest.
More fundamentally, it sets a dangerous precedent. If the regulator is given the power to define its own gatekeeping rules without parliamentary oversight, we create a system where compliance is dictated not by statute but by bureaucracy. Once that door is open, it rarely swings shut, as we have seen with other regulators. We know how these things go. One year it is audited accounts. The next it is fan engagement reports, community impact statements, net zero transition plans perhaps—all well-meaning, but all cumulative, and all irrelevant in practicality to whether a club should be granted a provisional licence to play football.
The way that the Government have drafted and introduced the Bill and conducted themselves during this process shows that they have forgotten the key part of this debate: playing football. They have become more concerned, we believe, with the minutiae of football governance. It is clear that they have put favours over fans in their appointment, cronies over clubs and bureaucracy over the beautiful game as they seek to make it almost impossible for clubs to actually get on with playing football. We must not lose sight of the fact that this is about playing football.
Let me be clear again: we are not opposing things for opposition’s sake, but we will provide a robust and thorough challenge to areas of the Bill that we believe will have unintended consequences. What we must resist is a system where clubs are treated as supplicants—forced to second-guess what information a regulator may require, fearful that an honest administrative error might cost them their licence, or worse, the future of their football club. Currently, clubs are at real risk of being sacrificed on the altar of bureaucracy by this Labour Government.
I urge the Committee to vote in favour of these amendments that would remove the ability of the Government’s politically led regulator to increase its own powers and remit without any oversight. This clause as drafted by the Government includes no provision for Parliament or even for the Secretary of State—whoever that may be in the coming months—to reign in their regulator and reduce their powers, if need be. Once passed, reversing an expansion of power by the regulator will be exceptionally difficult.
This Government promised us and fans a light-touch, risk-based independent regulator. That was before they appointed their own donor to be chair and then returned the favour, we believe, not only by giving him a fairly large part-time salary, but by giving him a fairly blank cheque about how to increase his power over time, as they have voted against amendments requiring more transparency, and we believe the interests of football fans.
It is clear that the Conservatives want to protect fans, and we will press these amendments, which seek to limit the power of the regulator going forward, to a vote.
Lincoln Jopp
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. Subsection (3)(c) of clause 16 is an absolute Trojan horse; it gives carte blanche to the regulator to demand whatever it wants, regardless of whether a club produces such documents or information on a routine basis. Anyone who has worked with a regulator will know that means that clubs will have to employ lawyers, because they would never submit anything to their regulator unless it had been through lawyers first.
The shadow Minister used the phrase “blank cheque”, but it is almost a blank invoice to the poor clubs that will simply have to comply. When a regulator says, “Jump”, they do not say, “Why?”; they say, “How high?” However high the bar is set, they have to get over it. It is completely reasonable, at this stage of the regulator’s development, to seek limits so that it can take some very well-defined steps in regulating football, prior to giving it the carte blanche that subsection (3)(c) represents. As the shadow Minister said, I fear that the unintended consequences of subsection (3)(c) will be considerable.
James Naish
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that regulation evolves anyway? My brother runs a property business, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that what he was first required to deliver to his regulator in 2012, when he set that business up, versus what he is required to deliver today has changed beyond imagination. Things move all the time, so it is appropriate for the regulator to be able to determine what it needs to perform the relevant functions.
Lincoln Jopp
Regulation does indeed evolve, but giving this football regulator carte blanche to evolve it without any recourse to Parliament is a key weakness of the Bill’s current drafting, which is why I support amendment 99.
Joe Robertson
The shadow Minister has already set out in great but necessary detail the reasons why amendments 99 and 100 have been tabled and should be supported. The issue is that subsections (3)(c) and (5)(b) of clause 16 provide a catch-all that allows the regulator to include such other information and documentation as it may specify when a club applies for a provisional operating licence. I support these amendments because I think those two provisions open the floodgates unnecessarily, and clause 16 already sets out the things that the regulator wants to see football clubs submit. To have that completely open floodgate is a problem for the reasons given.
If the Government were keen to have some flexibility here, they could have allowed the Secretary of State to specify any other such information in the future. At least there would then be some accountability via the Secretary of State’s being an elected person and ultimately accountable to Parliament. The particular issue here is that the regulator, once set up, does not have direct accountability, and therefore it would be easy for it to start stipulating all sorts of things. I support the amendments and I think that it should be tight, but the Government could have steered a halfway course here by retaining some powers for the Secretary of State, rather than the unelected regulator.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendments 99 and 100, which are very similar in effect. The Opposition do seem to be getting carried away this afternoon. I noted down some of the phrases he used: “Politically led”; “unlimited power”; “a regulatory land grab”; and “dangerous for sport”. Then he asked whether the Government had written a blank cheque. Well, I do not think that is the case, but if they did, it was his Government, because there have been no changes to this part of the Bill since its previous iteration.
Mr French
The Minister is trying to suggest that everything is the same, but the Secretary of State has literally nominated a Labour donor who donated to her and the Prime Minister to chair the regulator, so the situation has clearly changed. The appointment is now the subject of independent inquiry; they are under investigation for the appointment. The Minister has been landed the role because the Secretary of State has recused herself, so the situation has clearly changed and it is clearly a political appointment.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman can make that well-rehearsed comment, but I specifically said there are no changes to this part of the Bill. I am focused on what we are talking about, and the parts of the Bill that amendments 99 and 100 relate to have not been changed. He also said that he would not oppose just for the sake of it, but that does seem to be what he is doing.
Lincoln Jopp
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I were not here in the last Parliament, so what went on and the provenance of the Bill are not really our concern. We are being asked to contribute to the discussion and the debate on the Bill that has been placed before us. Neither of us saw the last one, so these are genuine points.
Stephanie Peacock
I take that point, but both the hon. Gentlemen stood on a manifesto that committed to introducing the Bill.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I believe that the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who previously represented Dudley South, while highlighting the Bill’s alignment with Conservatives prior to the last election, said he believed that this is a Bill that every single Conservative Member stood on at the last election in their manifesto, which was a ringing endorsement of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Indeed, a number of Conservative Members are on record as supporting this policy; it is just sad that the ones sitting opposite seem to have forgotten the manifesto they stood on.
Mr French
Sorry—Government Benches. Members of this Bill Committee have been appointed to it to scrutinise the Bill based on the situation now. The argument that seems to be coming from the Government Benches is that, under a new Parliament, we are unable to criticise or challenge the Bill because of what a previous Government proposed. We have already explained why we believe that the situation has changed, and why we have concerns, so we are well within our rights to table amendments. If the Opposition party does not agree with the Government, that is their decision to make.
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be short, snappy and relevant to the amendment we are discussing.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful, Ms Butler. I completely appreciate the point the shadow Minister is making, but he seems to be missing the point I am making that this part of the Bill has not changed from the previous one. I will now outline why we do not think amendments 99 or 100 are appropriate.
We do not think it is right to remove the ability of the regulator to require additional information from clubs during the application process for a licence. It is only right that the regulator can specify any further information or documentation it may need in order to properly assess whether a club needs the test for a provisional operating licence. It may require further information to assess a club’s circumstances and whether it will need to tailor any mandatory licensing conditions, or attach any initial discretionary licence conditions to the club.
Specifically on amendment 100, the criteria listed in the Bill are non-exhaustive, and the regulator should have the flexibility to request additional information from a club regarding its business plan when necessary. In line with the regulator’s principles, any request for information will, of course, be proportionate, and the regulator will co-operate and engage practically with the club. The regulator will not be asking for any information that is not in the scope of the provisional licence; there would be no reason for it to do so. However, there is an appeals process.
To end with an example, if a club puts forward a business plan and something seems out of the ordinary, the regulator may wish to ask where the funds are from. We think that that is perfectly reasonable, and it was in the previous iteration of the Bill.
Mr French
I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. Another point that I made—this is not political—was about the standardisation of requests, which would allow clubs to prepare on the basis of what they expect the regulator to ask and ensure consistency between clubs. Will the Minister tell us how that might work?
Stephanie Peacock
Standardisation is not appropriate in this context, because the extra information may relate to discretionary licence terms, which will be tailored to a club. It is therefore not relevant.
For the reasons I have given, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr French
We are concerned about unchecked powers, as we have explained at some length, and believe that the House should be able to check those powers. We are concerned about the lack of standardisation. I fear that, by treating clubs differently depending on their circumstances, the regulator will be left open to legal challenge. Some clubs have the financial resources to challenge a league, and will have the resource to challenge a regulator. We have seen that with certain clubs in the Premier League—I will not mention the cases, for legal reasons. Some football clubs are willing to challenge their regulation in court. We fear that, without standards for what is asked of clubs, there could be more legal challenges down the line. For those reasons, we will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
The introduction of the football regulator into a previously unregulated sector will be a substantial change to the industry, but it is necessary to safeguard the future of English football. To provide for a gradual transition to being fully licensed, a club will initially apply to the regulator for a provisional operating licence. We see this as a natural step to attaining a full operating licence. That will give clubs time to adapt to the regulatory system and make the necessary changes without being unfairly penalised for being unable to raise standards overnight.
The application for a provisional licence requires basic information on a club’s owner or owners, officers and senior management, as well as a strategic business plan detailing such things as estimated costs of the club and how they are expected to be funded. A personnel statement will identify each of the club’s owners and officers, the club’s ultimate owner, and the job titles and roles performed by those people. A strategic business plan is a document containing information about the operation of the club, the estimated costs, how those costs will be funded and the source of such funding.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) The IFR must make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence within the period of one month.
(10) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (9) by no more than two weeks if it requires more time to consider the application due to—
(a) unusual staffing pressures, or
(b) discrepancies or abnormalities with the application.
(11) If the IFR extends the period as per subsection (10), it must give a notice to the relevant club stating—
(a) that the period has been extended,
(b) the length of the extension, and
(c) the reasons for the extension.”
This amendment places a time limit of one month for the IFR to decide whether to grant a provisional operating licence.
The amendment would require the independent financial regulator to make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operational licence within a period of one month. The independent football regulator would be able to extend the period by no more than two weeks if it required more time to consider the application, whether that be due to staffing or other issues. If the independent football regulator extended the period, it would have to give notice to the relevant club explaining why.
Clause 17 is where we find the initial provisions that give the Government’s regulator the power to grant provisional operating licences and the conditions that must be satisfied for a football club to be granted a such a licence. The Government’s regulator must be satisfied that the club applying will comply with the free-standing duties on clubs as set out in part 4, comply with the mandatory licence conditions set out in schedule 5, and operate a relevant team.
On the face of it, the clause seems necessary. There should be a safety net for clubs that have uncertain futures but cannot afford to pause operations while a full licensing determination is made. In that sense, the provisional licence acts as a regulatory bridge which, if implemented properly, can be an essential tool for avoiding the kind of cliff-edge collapses that we have sadly seen in years gone by. Clubs such as Bury and Macclesfield, where administrative or ownership crises rapidly spiralled and led to total collapse, might have benefited from such a mechanism. I pay tribute to all the fans and campaigners who have fought so hard for a regime that intervenes earlier rather than only when it is too late. As I have said, I believe that all Members would have preferred football to have got its act together and for our not to be doing this today, but we are where we are.
Although I support clause 17 in principle, I want to raise concerns about how it is drafted and how its powers might be used in practice. First, the clause gives the regulator significant discretion in determining whether to issue a provisional licence and under what conditions. Subsection (1) provides that a licence may be granted—not must—even where a club applies in good faith and has satisfied the initial criteria. That may be appropriate in some circumstances, but it raises the risk that clubs could be left in a holding pattern, awaiting a decision for weeks or months on end with no firm timetable and no recourse to receive an outcome from the Government’s regulator.
Secondly, the measure allows the regulator to impose any conditions it considers appropriate when granting a provisional licence. We absolutely recognise the need for the independent football regulator to have flexibility, particularly when dealing with clubs that may be in financial distress or suffering from poor governance. However, as currently drafted, the clause presents a clear and present danger to English football. As I have highlighted already, we believe that imposing different rules on different clubs will create issues for the regulator going forward, legally and particularly in relation to independence and European competitions, but Members will be pleased to know that I will not go into that again. We must also guard against the risk of disproportionate or arbitrary conditions being imposed, particularly if they are unchallengeable or unclear for clubs. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm whether a club might, for example, be required to restructure its board to get a provisional licence? Would it be forced to accept certain ownership conditions, and would it be required to provide reams of documentation within a short period just for the provisional licence? These are not hypothetical questions but real-world concerns that clubs will have, particularly at the lower end of the football pyramid. Many such clubs, as I have already outlined, lack the administrative bandwidth to deal with complex regulatory demands at short notice.
That is why the official Opposition have tabled amendment 101, which would ensure that the Government’s regulator must reach a decision on a provisional licence within one month. We fear that, without a time limit, clause 17 risks becoming an instrument of delay, rather than one that supports and creates certainty for clubs by providing a regulatory bridge. Crucially, there is no requirement in the clause as drafted for the regulator to explain why a provisional licence has been refused or revoked. That, again, undermines transparency, and if a regulator is to command trust and credibility, particularly in the emotionally-charged world of football—in its good moments and its bad—it must be seen to be operating with both fairness and openness.
We understand that a decision can be appealed as a “reviewable decision” under clause 81. However, that does not provide transparency for fans, and an appeals process increases uncertainty for clubs. Fans and clubs deserve a Government regulator that acts swiftly, proportionately and, above all, transparently. Clause 17 is the beginning of that promise, but it must be shaped with care.
Jim Dickson
Does the hon. Member think that there is any contradiction between his desire, as set out in the amendment, to see decisions made incredibly quickly and his desire that he expressed earlier to see the number of people employed by the regulator limited to 50?
Mr French
No, I do not, and I think the hon. Member slightly misunderstands what the measure is about. It is about the provisional licence, not the full-fat licence. I am not asking the regulator to rush a decision on whether a club should be granted a long-term licence. We are asking for some certainty and some time limits to help with that bridging. We have already said that we are concerned about the size of the regulator, but we want clubs to have some certainty around timeframes and not to be left in limbo for too long.
Our belief that clubs should have certainty was why we tabled amendment 101, which would establish a time limit of one month for the Government’s regulator to decide whether it will grant a provisional operating licence. This is supposed to be the main focus of the regulator, so we believe that it is reasonable to expect that it fulfils that function efficiently. This would be an important and proportionate safeguard. It would not diminish the regulator’s authority, but rather ensure that it is exercised in a timely, effective and accountable manner. It is about introducing clarity, certainty and discipline into a process that, under the Bill as drafted, risks becoming needlessly opaque and potentially open-ended.
We must remember what the provisional licence mechanism is designed to achieve. It is not the final or comprehensive licence that will be granted to a club, as I have just said. It is a stopgap—a holding measure meant to ensure continuity of operation for clubs while their full licensing application is under assessment. In short, it is there to prevent disruption, not to prolong it. Thinking about the footballing element to this, a club that was held in limbo, unable to play, would create a lot of issues for the league and the season overall.
As it stands, the Bill provides the Government’s regulator with no firm timetable or obligation to act within any defined period when it comes to a provisional licence. That raises two concerns. First, it risks leaving clubs in regulatory limbo, especially those already in difficult situations. That is not just a matter of administrative inconvenience. For clubs living hand-to-mouth, as many sadly are, uncertainty over their licensing status could mean missed deadlines for investment, lost commercial deals or even delays in paying staff and suppliers. In the worst cases, it could trigger crises and the very things that the Bill was supposed to prevent.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for that point. Transfers are a key aspect. If a club is in limbo, it could arguably be at a much bigger disadvantage when the season starts if it had not been able to make transfers because it was uncertain about whether it could compete in the competition. The point is well made.
Secondly, the absence of a defined period creates a lack of accountability within the regulator itself. As we have discussed, the regulator cannot be scrutinised in the way that we would have hoped. We know that the Government do want it to be strong, but with strength must come accountability and transparency. If it is to command the trust of fans, clubs and local communities, it must be seen to act with purpose, not with delay.
We know from numerous examples across different industries that when regulators are left without timetables, backlogs just build up. I will not name examples because I am conscious of time, but we know that it happens. My amendment proposes a time limit of one month—a full 30 days—for the regulator to determine whether a provisional licence should be granted. That is not a rushed timetable; we believe that it is a reasonable one, especially considering that when a club applies for a provisional licence, the key facts will likely already be known by the regulator. Again, this is not designed to be a forensic financial autopsy, but a short-term stabilising mechanism.
Let me also be clear that the time limit does not bind the regulator to approve an application within a month; it simply requires a decision one way or another within that time. That allows the Government’s regulator to reject unsuitable applications if needed—hopefully not—but it removes the damaging uncertainty of a process that otherwise could drag on indefinitely. We must not forget who bears the cost of delay. It is not just the club executives and directors, but the fans, players and staff. We have just heard about transfers, which are a great example. It is about the people who turn up on a Saturday afternoon come rain or shine, the people who run the club shop and the ticket gates, and the people whose local economies benefit from having a club that is alive, operating and secure.
The amendment also supports the broader aim of stability in football. A system without timelines invites inconsistency and subjectivity. One club might be processed in a week, and another in six. That cannot be right. We owe it to clubs at all levels, from the top of the Premier League right the way down to the National League, to create a system that is predictable and fair.
Finally, good regulation is not just about the rules but about responsiveness. It is about a regulator that can act promptly, efficiently and in partnership with the people it is overseeing. Our amendment does not weaken the regulator; it makes it better. It strengthens the trust between the regulator and the regulated. It gives clubs the certainty that they need to plan, invest and survive. After all, that is what the Government say is the intention of this regulator. I hope that hon. Members will support the principle behind the amendment. We have heard some of the issues that may arise if not.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 101. I will outline the reasons why we will not accept it, and then I will respond to some of the questions that he raised.
The Bill ensures that the regulator has the necessary flexibility to ensure that all clubs that meet the test for a provisional licence will be given one. Introducing an arbitrary statutory timeframe of one month for the regulator to make a decision on a club’s application would remove that flexibility. Only the regulator can know what the process of assessing applications might entail or how long it might take, so it should have the ability to set in rules the period within which it will make a decision, the period of any potential extension and the circumstances in which an extension will be granted. The regulator will engage with all clubs prior to the application for a provisional operating licence to ensure that the process is as smooth and efficient as possible, and its regulatory principles encourage it to act in a timely manner.
I turn to some of the specific points that the hon. Member made. There will be no requirement to restructure the board to get a provisional licence. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the regulator will take an advocacy-first approach. Clubs will be asked to submit basic information and documentation, and to show a readiness and willingness to work with the regulator. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to clause 17(4)(b), which says that if, for whatever reason, the regulator does not give a licence, it would have to give reasons. Even in that scenario, which I highlight is hypothetical, enforcement might take place, but it would not prevent the club from playing. For these reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister just said something that I am not quite clear about; perhaps, given my hon. Friend’s experience, he could explain it to me. If a club gets promoted to the English Football League—the happiest day of the club’s history—it then has to apply to become regulated, but if it does not have that licence by the beginning of the next season, the Minister just said that it can play. Where should I look in the Bill to understand the latitude that clubs have to play in the English Football League without regulation?
Stephanie Peacock
Of course. The shadow Minister referred more than once to clubs not being able to play. As I said, this is an advocacy-first approach; the regulator will work with clubs to make sure that they can reach the provisional licence requirements. It is a basic set of requirements, and they do not have to meet it to receive the provisional licence; they just have to show a willingness and an ability to do that. In the hypothetical scenario that they do not, enforcement may happen, but they will not be prevented from playing. However, we do not anticipate that happening, because at the provisional stage, the regulator will work with them to make sure that they can do that. I want to be very clear—perhaps the hon. Member for Spelthorne misunderstood what I said—that the regulator will work with teams to make sure that they can get that provisional licence.
Mr French
That was a rather long intervention, but I suspect it was probably needed. I appreciate the clarity from the Minister on that point, but in terms of the time limit, we are concerned about the impact of the uncertainty relating to the provisional element. In this situation, we would like that to be a focus of the regulator, given that it is being set up for exactly this kind of work. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
The granting of a provisional operating licence will act as a first step towards a club gaining a full operating licence, and will allow the club to operate for a time-limited period. That will be up to three years initially, although it could be shortened or extended depending on the circumstances. This provisional period will allow the regulator time to assess the current standing of the club and determine what steps will need to be taken to attain a full operating licence, as well as giving the club the time to take those necessary steps. The club will provide a personnel statement and a strategic business plan as part of the application process, providing an overview of the club’s operations and financial information.
Once a club has a provisional licence, it will be required to meet basic requirements set out in the mandatory conditions, as well as to comply with the free-standing duties contained in the Bill. This will help to safeguard the club’s sustainability and heritage. There are three aspects to the test that the regulator will apply when deciding whether to grant a provisional operating licence. First, the club must operate a team in a specified competition, which effectively means that the club must be in scope of the regulator. Secondly, the club will comply with the mandatory licence conditions that will be attached to the licence by the regulator; full details of the mandatory licence conditions are in schedule 5. The third aspect is that the club will comply with the duties on clubs, as set out in part 5.
If the regulator is not satisfied that the club meets all the elements of the test, it must let the club know and give it an opportunity to engage with the regulator to rectify the issues identified before the regulator takes a decision. That collaborative approach will aim to ensure that clubs are given every opportunity to meet the requirements and gain a provisional operating licence.
The test for a provisional licence has been carefully designed to get clubs into the regulatory system as quickly as possible, and then to give them a transition period to raise standards, if necessary, and obtain a full licence.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister said that clubs would still be allowed to play in the absence of a provisional operating licence. How long would they be allowed to play for before being granted such a licence?
Stephanie Peacock
We do not anticipate that happening. Enforcement would take place, but we do not want the regulator to stop clubs being able to play. I am outlining how the regulator will do everything it can. The information is fairly basic, and the aim is to move as quickly as possible, so we anticipate clubs being able to receive that provisional licence.
Clause 18 establishes the second step of a two-step licensing process designed to ensure a smooth transition to regulation. Being granted a full operating licence should be the aim of all clubs in scope of the regulator. The full licence means that the regulator is satisfied that the club meets all relevant requirements, including the threshold requirements. For a club to pass the test for a full licence, the regulator must be satisfied that the club
“meets the threshold requirements set out in Schedule 4”
and is complying with and
“would continue to comply with the mandatory licence conditions”
and the free-standing duties on clubs set out in part 5. Finally, the regulator must not have determined
“that any person who is an owner or officer of the club is not suitable”
for the position they hold.
The clause also details the power that the regulator has to extend the provisional operating licence for a club. That will be done only if the regulator believes that the club does not meet the bar for a full licence at present, but will do if given more time. Clubs will have had time and support, while provisionally licensed, to ensure that they can meet the higher bar for a full licence. Once the club has a full licence, it will not have to be periodically reviewed. Instead, the regulator will continue to monitor and supervise the club. There will be an annual touchpoint in the form of an annual declaration, in which the club will notify the regulator of any relevant changes. That will minimise burdens while still ensuring that the club continues to adhere to the necessary requirements, including requirements that ensure that fans’ best interests are at the heart of the club’s decision-making process. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Mr French
The Minister has outlined clauses 17 and 18 at some length. We had a lengthy debate on clause 17 in relation to our amendment 101. We are naturally disappointed that the amendment, and the time limit that we seek for the provisional licensing, was not agreed to. However, in the interests of time, I will move on to clause 18.
Clause 18 sets out the process by which the Government’s regulator may grant the full operating licence to a club, which is a crucial stage in the proposed licensing regime, with significant long-term implications for the structure, stability and future of the English game. This clause is where the Government’s regulator transitions from assessing provisional eligibility to giving a formal stamp of approval for a club’s longer-term competition and compliance. However, the clause raises several questions that the Committee must interrogate, and that I hope the Minister will be able to answer—not least whether it achieves the right balance between regulatory assurance and operational flexibility.
Under the clause, the regulator may grant a full operating licence only if satisfied that a club meets the relevant conditions of eligibility. That is right and proper, and clubs should be expected to operate on a stable financial footing, meet appropriate governance standards and protect the game’s integrity. But I am concerned about the breadth and, in some respects, the open-ended nature of what those conditions of eligibility might come to mean in practice.
We must be alive to the risk of regulatory overreach, as the Opposition have highlighted, and we should all recognise that bad regulation is worse than no regulation at all. If clubs are to be subject to vague or ever-changing thresholds, with little recourse or clarity on what is required, we risk imposing a level of uncertainty that could deter vital investment, discourage long-term planning and undermine the very sustainability that the regulator seeks to ensure. That is why the Opposition will—as we already have done in Committee—continue to press for greater transparency around the costs and cumulative burdens that flow from the action of the regulator; and it is why we believe that the regulator should not have unfettered discretion to shift the goalposts without clear parliamentary scrutiny and approval. As I have said, we should not write blank cheques to a politically led regulator.
Another issue with the clause is timeliness. As we have explained, clubs will need to plan ahead, financially, structurally and operationally. If the licensing process drags on, it risks becoming a bottleneck and not a safeguard for clubs around participation. We tabled amendments that would ensure timely decision making on provisional licences, and the same principle must surely also apply to full licences. However, we appreciate the different context within which a full operating licence will exist. That is why we have not tabled an amendment to this clause with a specific deadline. We understand that full licences will take slightly longer.
Moreover, there is a danger that the full licence becomes a tool for undue influence. We have spoken about our concerns about the impact that that may have on the statutes of UEFA and FIFA—in the interests of time, I will not go into that again. If clubs feel under pressure to comply with this new licensing regime to be able to play in English football, there may be a concern about them breaching other regimes, such as UEFA and FIFA, and, again, they may fear expulsion from those competitions.
One club asked me this question, although it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, so I will not name them. If a Premier League club decided not to apply for a licence, would the Government look to exclude it? There is the risk that, if a club feels that it will not be able to compete in Europe, for whatever reason, it may choose what this Bill was originally intended to stop: the European breakaway league.
I am not sure that the club would do that, as it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but what would happen if a club says, “We are not going to meet these conditions, and therefore we will not apply for a licence”? Would the Government or regulator be willing to kick that club out of the Premier League? Even though that question is hypothetical, we need to know where this might lead, because we are talking about a regulation that will have an impact. If the Minister can answer where she thinks that club might go, I would be particularly interested in that.
We are also concerned about the future interpretation of eligibility and how that may veer into what we believe to be subjective decisions, or where the Government’s regulator will take on new powers as it enters mission creep. As such, I would appreciate it if the Minister will confirm that there will be no demands, for example, on clubs to provide diversity quotas, net zero targets or enforced political campaigns, all of which stray beyond the regulator’s core remit of financial sustainability and good governance. Let us not forget that football clubs are not franchises, as they are in the American sport system. Our clubs are community institutions with long histories and unique identities. They are not all cut from the same cloth.
Melanie Onn
Would the shadow Minister consider the kick racism out of football campaign to be political activity that clubs and the regulator should not be involved in?
Mr French
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but that is not the point I was making. I am talking about quotas, which is a slightly different thing. We do not think that the regulator should be insisting on quotas, and that is very different from Kick It Out, which has made incredible progress for football over the years. The hon. Lady has raised a very different point, so I will not go down that rabbit hole.
I am sure that the Minister would agree that what is best for Barnsley FC is not necessarily best for Bromley FC or Bristol Rovers. Each club has unique characteristics and should be treated as such. However, we feel that the Bill, as drafted, could lead to clubs being lumped in the same direction. We believe in the equalisation of treatment, but each club should not be treated exactly the same when there are clear differences, whether that be in league structures or financial positions.
We are concerned about parts of clause 18, but we believe that it is an important part of the licensing structure that must be implemented with care, proportionality and consistency. It is essential that the Government’s regulator operates with discipline, sticking to those statutory objectives, resisting the temptation to micro-manage and always keeping front of mind the importance of stability, continuity and respect of football’s unique heritage. We support the principles of the clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister answered some of my questions about what may come in the future and what the Government would do if a club decided not to apply for a licence.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments. A number of the points that he made have been well debated over the last few days in Committee, so I will not be engaging in them. I will not be engaging in hypotheticals either. We have been very clear that we simply do not want scope creep. The two-step process of the provisional and full operating licence means that clubs do not need to make substantial changes in a short space of time. We absolutely appreciate that it could be difficult for some clubs to meet threshold requirements, and the regulator will very much work with them. The regulator will have a balanced and proportionate approach, centred around advocacy first.
Mr French
I appreciate that I was asking about a hypothetical situation, but it is an important hypothetical. We are talking about a structure going forward in which clubs will be required to have a licence, and we have had some exchanges on that. This is a serious question: what would the football regulator do if a club said that it did not want the licence, and it did not believe it had to have one? Where would that legally leave the club and regulator? Even though it is hypothetical, it is very important to what we are debating in the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
I disagree that it is an important hypothetical. We can come on to talk about enforcement later on, but we are talking now about the regulator’s approach, which will be balanced, proportionate and centred around advocacy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Westminster Hall
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
Police Presence on High Streets
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police presence on high streets.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, for a debate on such an important issue. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate, and I thank the Members from all parties who supported my application.
My constituency, which covers Erdington, Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott, routinely suffers from one of the highest crime rates in Birmingham, but let me be clear: crime is not inevitable. It is the result of choices to cut policing and to neglect communities—choices made in the corridors of power. The previous Government made the choice to slash 21,000 officers, the choice to hollow out neighbourhood policing, and the choice to tell communities, “You’re on your own.” When crime tears through families and destroys lives, it is not just the victims who are affected but the entire community.
Our high streets are not immune; they become battle- grounds where livelihoods are stolen. We owe it to every parent, every shop worker and every pensioner who just wants to walk their high street without fear to end this blight. When I was elected in March 2022, Erdington High Street was a symbol of neglect—a place where crime had festered, where shopkeepers feared for their stock, and where families no longer felt safe to walk. The statistics were stark: antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and violent crime had cost our economy an estimated £7 million annually. Our high streets are the beating heart of our communities, yet for too long they have been treated as an afterthought, so I made it my mission—a promise to my community—that we would take back Erdington High Street from the crime and antisocial behaviour that had plagued it for too long.
Here is the truth: change is possible. It does not come easily, but it comes when good people stand up and fight for their community. As a nurse, I learned that prevention is always better than cure, and as an MP I have seen the cost of ignoring that lesson. We took action, working with residents, community groups and traders, and launched a relentless campaign to take the challenges of Erdington High Street head on. We organised, mobilised and made our voices impossible to ignore. In meeting after meeting, we stood shoulder to shoulder with local businesses, community groups and fed-up residents who delivered one clear message to those in power: Erdington deserves better.
And do you know what? They heard us. Working with West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Foster and Chief Constable Craig Guildford, we secured £880,000 from the proceeds of crime fund, and in January this year Operation Fearless was launched under the incredible leadership of Detective Superintendent Jim Munro and Inspector Shameem Ahmed. The results speak for themselves: over 140 arrests, including drug dealers, violent offenders and those carrying zombie knives, and even a live firearm; 124 stop and searches in two months, with 45 positive outcomes, getting weapons off the streets; a 25-year-old jailed for four years for class A drug supply—proof that justice works when we fund it. Operation Fearless was not just about enforcement; it was about partnerships.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The hon. Member is making an important point about funding. The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland wrote to the Prime Minister last August asking for more funding, because His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services had recognised that our police service was 400 neighbourhood police officers short. Does she agree that such issues should not be shrugged off as operational matters but are the result of political decisions over the years that have resulted in less funding for our police service?
Paulette Hamilton
The hon. Member makes an absolutely brilliant point and hits the nail on the head. Funding is key and if it is not given, we cannot get the same results. We cannot get the same results if we do not have the resources to achieve them.
We worked with Birmingham city council, the Erdington business improvement district, trading standards and local businesses to remove graffiti, clean shutters and restore pride to our high street. I extend especial thanks to Caroline Anson Earp, the community safety partnership manager, for her incredible work on our high street. Today, traders report fewer thefts, shoppers feel safer and the buzz of community life has returned. Traders who once feared for their safety say that the difference is night and day.
As Operation Fearless takes its proven model to the next struggling community, a new era begins for Erdington High Street. Thanks to our new dedicated high street team, six officers and a sergeant maintain visible patrols. We are not just preserving progress; we are securing lasting change.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Did Operation Fearless include the use of live facial recognition, which the Metropolitan police used in Southwark recently to catch a previously convicted sex offender who was in breach of a court order and wandering around Denmark Hill with a six-year-old? He is now safely back in jail. Does she, like me, welcome the extension of the use of live facial recognition?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I absolutely agree with the use of facial recognition where we can get it. In Erdington, we did not have facial recognition, but I do think that it is a good thing.
We cannot stop here; although Labour’s pledge of 13,000 more police officers is welcome, we must go further. Every high street deserves a named and contactable police officer, so that communities know who is fighting for them. We need to be bolder to establish partnerships with councils, communities, schools, youth services and those who serve them, because policing alone will not fix systemic failure.
I also pay tribute to our retail workers, such as the heroes of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers’ Freedom From Fear campaign, who fought abuse for 20 years. These workers, who are often women and often young, should not have had to endure threats just for doing their job. Operation Fearless has shown that with the right resources, we can protect them.
The lesson of Operation Fearless is clear: when we invest, listen and act, change happens. But this is not just Erdington’s fight. From Bristol to Bolton, high streets are crying out for the same type of hope. Erdington’s story proves that change is possible. Let us be clear that this issue is not just about one high street. It is about every community fighting for safety and pride; it is about recognising that policing must be visible, proactive and rooted in partnership; and it is about whether we believe every community deserves safety, dignity and a future. I believe they do.
To the Minister I say, let us build on the success of actions like Operation Fearless. Let us make sure the 13,000 new officers actually reach the frontline and that every high street has a named, contactable officer. Let us fund real partnerships, not just patrols. Let us stand firmly with retail workers and let us never forget that safe high streets are the foundation of strong communities.
I end with the words of a shopkeeper in Erdington:
“For the first time in years, I feel hopeful.”
That hope, that belief in better, is what we must deliver for every high street in Britain.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will start by imposing an informal limit of four minutes on speeches. There are plenty of you here who can fill the time, so we are keen for you to get on with it. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a privilege to be here with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate. Some people might look at this debate and think that this is not really the most important thing in life, but our constituents want to be able to go down their shopping streets without the fear of any threats. They want to shop calmly without seeing the shelves stripped of goods, being threatened and watching shop- keepers pinned against walls. What they want is policing, which is their right.
With the time limit there will not be enough time to cover everything. Police numbers are always the issue, but we should look at what took place in New York at one particular point. The key rule is not just more police, but more effective police. It is the effectiveness that I want to dwell on. Even when we have the police numbers, effectiveness is often not the priority. I have had a series of issues over the high streets in my constituency. One is in the Broadway in Woodford and the other one is in Station Road. A key element in a lot of these shopping areas is the position of the larger shops such as Boots, the Co-op or Tesco—the shops that bring people on to local shopping streets to get things. But then people go off to the smaller shops, so it is important for trade to get the balance right.
The problem is that there are gangs now on the street sending people in—they walk in; they do not run. I have seen them strip between £3,000, £5,000 and £10,000 of goods off the shelves in Boots, or the Co-op. They go into all the big shops and they are photographed, but we discovered the other day that the shops had given up on sending that data to the police. As a result, the police said they did not think that this was a priority area because they did not get a full record of the crime. If the shops do not go to the police, the police do not record the crime and do not put police on the street. Without police on the street, crime increases and the likelihood of it being reported gets less and less. That is not down to the small shops, because they are the ones that bear the brunt of the violence. It is the big shops and the chains.
We held a meeting the other day with three or four of the big shops in Station Road. When I say “big”, they are small, local versions of Amazon and other shops, such as Boots and so on. We discovered that not one of them was bothering to record any of the crime or to get it to the police. When we spoke to the police, they said, “We have had no record of this.” That is not to say they do not know that crime is taking place—they do—but the reality is they work on the statistics. We asked the shops, “Why are you not reporting the crime?”, and a manager said, “We are not rewarded for it by the big shops. The truth at the end of it all is that we do not see any return.”
We have now instigated a system where we have set up a WhatsApp group for shopkeepers on the street so they can report the crime in the small shops. They say they will report the crime, provided the police actually react to it, come on to the street and make arrests. There is a third element to this. The police often get disenchanted about it, because when they arrest these people and take them away, they get released pretty quickly as there is no space for their case—they are often back on the streets the same day as they were arrested. The issue is more effective policing. We asked them to go on to the street in civilian clothes, because the offenders just move around when the police are there in uniform. The police did that and they made a series of arrests, which sent a shockwave through the gangs.
The point that I will end with is that there is a huge amount to be done, but antisocial behaviour—of which shoplifting is a critical component—is arguably the most dangerous element on our streets. As the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington said, if we lose control of that, drug dealing and gangs take over. Shoplifting should be the priority. Make our streets safe and there is fair chance we will be able to catch the big criminals later on.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will be putting in a formal four-minute limit, which means that Members will be cut off after four minutes. Can Members try to get their speeches in within that time, so we can ensure everyone gets to speak?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate. I remember campaigning alongside her in her by-election, and this issue being raised by constituents, who, in her, are now fortunate to have such a steadfast advocate.
Over the past decade, too many of our town centres and high streets have been gripped by antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting. It was often dismissed by the previous Government as merely low-level crime, but there is nothing low-level about the impact these crimes have on the communities left to deal with the consequences, often alone. My constituency of Cannock Chase is home to people who care deeply about their community, but too many of them now tell me they feel unsafe on our high streets. When people no longer feel safe where they live, work or shop, we risk losing more than just footfall: we risk losing our sense of identity altogether.
People are not asking for the world; they are asking for the basics: to feel safe walking home, to be secure at work, and to let their children go out with their friends without fear. A recurring issue is shoplifting, especially in Cannock town centre. In the two years prior to the general election, shoplifting rose by more than 60%, leaving retail workers feeling frightened and unprotected. Cannock’s shoplifting rate currently stands at nearly three times the national average. Shopkeepers and store managers have told my team that they feel intimidated when large groups of young people gather and go into shops all at once. Some talked about how helpless they felt in the face of shoplifting, which has got to the point where it is actually endangering the future of their business.
The British Retail Consortium’s 2023-24 annual crime survey laid bare the scale of the crisis. Retail workers endured 124 incidents of violence or abuse every single day, yet only 32% of those incidents were reported, and only 10% led to police attendance. That is simply unacceptable. I welcome the measures in the new Crime and Policing Bill, including the long overdue creation of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. I particularly pay tribute to USDAW and the Co-operative party, of which I am a member, for their long years of unwavering campaigning for this vital change to the law.
In Hednesford, two young men recently stopped me to raise their concerns about gangs loitering in town centres and parks. They told me how intimidating it felt to walk past all of these groups. Between September 2023 and 2024, there were 587 recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour across my constituency. These are not just statistics—they are the lived experiences of people who have been driven away from our high streets. We will never be able to rebuild our communities when people feel that way.
Recognising the scale of the problem, a new public spaces protection order has come into force, and I commend the Government for taking steps through the Crime and Policing Bill, including targeted provisions to restore safety and confidence in our communities. But let me be clear: these are more than just headlines. In February, a group of teenagers were robbed in Cannock town centre. One of them—a 15-year-old boy—had his phone, watch, bank card and coat taken. Three of his friends also had their phones stolen. No young person should have to go through that.
Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of welcoming pupils from Kingsmead school into Parliament. They did not just bring enthusiasm—sadly, they also brought concerns. Many of them shared their worries about a rise in phone thefts by people riding e-scooters. This is not unique to Cannock; it is happening in town centres across the country. Elderly residents have told me how frightening it is to be approached by fast-moving, illegally ridden scooters, especially when they cannot move out of the way in time. Crimes like this may seem minor on paper, but their cumulative effect is devastating. They create an atmosphere where people feel unsafe, uncared for and overlooked.
Cuts to neighbourhood policing have taken a heavy toll. Trust in the police has plummeted. We hear time and again that when something goes wrong, people feel that nobody will come. I welcome the steps the Government are taking, and I will continue pushing for safer high streets for my constituents, because they have the right to feel secure where they live, work and shop. Our message is clear: we need visible policing and real opportunity for young people, to draw them into jobs, not gangs. This is not just about being tough on crime; it is about being strong on community, on prevention and on justice.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
I have never seen so many police officers in Huntingdon high street as were on patrol the afternoon that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary came to my constituency to announce the neighbourhood policing plan. Due to the police allocation formula, Cambridgeshire’s entire allocation of the 13,000 officers is just 30 new warranted officers over the remaining four years of this Parliament. Across eight constituencies, that is fewer than four officers each—one officer per constituency per year.
Presumably, the starting state for the 13,000 is the number of police officers in 2023, when the pledge was made. That was 141,760. In the year to March 2023, we recruited 16,300 officers; in the year to March 2024, we recruited 9,479 officers, a fluctuation of nearly 7,000. What are the intra-year recruitment figures, and how will recruitment targets fluctuate with natural churn?
In March, the Home Secretary stated to me that the redeployment of 3,000 officers from other duties would involve
“redeploying existing police officers and backfilling by recruiting other officers to take their posts.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 678.]
The Home Secretary does not have operational control of police officers, so when will she outline how that will work in practice? Which police forces will be forced to redeploy officers, and how many will each need to redeploy? What other services will suffer while new officers are recruited to take the place of more experienced officers?
In April, the Metropolitan police announced swingeing cuts as a result of pressures from the Chancellor’s Budget. The Royal Parks police is being disbanded, as are officers in schools; the dogs unit is being slashed by 7% and the mounted branch by 25%; the MO7 taskforce, which tackles moped and e-bike robbers as well as gang-related crime, is being reduced by 55%; and cold case investigations are to be cut by 11%. The Met is also cutting 20% of the flying squad and potentially removing its firearms capability.
Even after a £1 billion cash injection by the Mayor of London, the Met still has a £260 million shortfall and will cut 1,700 officers, staff and police community support officers. In December, Sir Mark Rowley suggested that it might have to cut 2,300 officers. The Mayor claims that his cash injection has saved 935 of those roles, so presumably the remaining 1,350-odd are frontline officers.
Last Friday, six police chiefs went over the head of the Home Secretary and appealed directly to the Prime Minister. They stated:
“A settlement that fails to address our inflation and pay pressures flat would entail stark choices about which crimes we no longer prioritise. The policing and NCA workforce would also shrink each year.”
Neil Coyle
I will start with a cheeky one: does the hon. Gentleman welcome the recruitment of PC Coyle to Durham constabulary? One of the new recruits under this Government is a family member—my brother— of whom I am very proud. Does he also welcome the combined £300 million of support from central Government and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to the Met to try to address some of the challenges he is outlining?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I absolutely welcome that additional funding, but the point that I would most like to make— I have made it previously—is that the police allocation formula, which determines how much funding each of our police forces receives, is grossly unfair. Constituencies like mine in Cambridgeshire do not receive a fair allocation of the overall pot. I will press the Policing Minister: as she well knows, because we have had a lot of conversations about this, I encourage her to revise that next year.
Neil Coyle
This Government inherited that formula from the Conservative Government. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is a bit naive to suggest that there is a fair balance in policing responsibilities when the capital’s police force runs counter-terrorism operations for the whole country?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I believe that it is remunerated budgetarily in order to cover that.
Ben Obese-Jecty
But, I agree, not enough, and the police allocation formula would do well to look at policing as a whole so that every constituency gets its fair share of police funding. As we all know, the population has grown, and the police allocation formula is from 2014. I met the last Government when I was still a candidate to ask them to review the formula, and I press the new Government to do the same.
Ben Obese-Jecty
They did as much work on it as the hon. Gentleman’s Government have.
That reduction in police strength comes before we consider the fact that the numbers that the Home Secretary based her calculations on were completely wrong in the first place, as the Government announced, very quietly, on 19 March. Of the 43 forces in England and Wales, 29 advised that their published combined neighbourhood officer and PCSO numbers should be revised down. That resulted in an overall downwards revision of 2,611 compared with the figures published last year. In total, that, plus the 1,350 from the Met and the 7,000 annual fluctuation, means that the 13,000 figure looks a lot more like 24,000. Can the Minister outline why the baseline figure of 13,000 has not been revised since it was first announced in February 2023—even to account for the shortfall caused by miscounting?
The general public deserve to have police that are resourced to protect the communities they serve. My constituents deserve to have their fair share of police officers, not a token amount based on a police allocation formula that is years out of date.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing a debate on something that is clearly so important to so many of our constituents. Like other Members here, among the top issues in my inbox, and that were raised with me during my campaign, are how safe people feel on our high streets and the impact that crime has on our community. In Kettering, our high streets are the beating hearts of our neighbourhoods, where people should feel safe walking to school, going to work, doing their weekly shopping and investing in our local economy. However, for too long our town centres have been blighted by crime such as antisocial behaviour and shoplifting, leaving members of the public feeling intimidated and unsafe in town centres, local parks and neighbourhoods.
My constituents have contacted me to say that they have seen people trashing shops, stealing and being abusive to staff on our high streets. They worry that when crimes like that are reported, too often there is no follow-up, no investigation and no deterrent. Unfortunately, the previous Government considered that low-level behaviour and cut neighbourhood policing. We felt that in Kettering, as what was once a police station in the heart of our high street turned into a derelict building.
Police forces across the country have faced financial and operational challenges in recent years. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the hard work of local police officers in Kettering. I know that officers are working hard on Operation Napery and hope to see the positive outcomes of that work.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Shipley Market Square in my constituency is having a major facelift, but to attract shoppers back into the town centre we know that we need to make it safe. I commend my local officers, Inspector Tany Ditta and his team, for the amazing work they do. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising that the Labour Government’s commitment to increase neighbourhood policing will allow more patrols on streets in Shipley and in places that she represents?
Rosie Wrighting
Yes, absolutely. I will say more about that in my speech.
We cannot have a conversation about policing on our high streets without talking about retail crime. In March, when Geek Retreat in Kettering was targeted, a brick was thrown through the window and eggs were smashed on the shop front. Retailers up and down the high street spoke of similar experiences of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour and the lengths to which they have to go to mitigate it. One shop reallocated shifts to prevent more vulnerable members of staff being intimidated at closing time.
It is unacceptable that over 2,000 incidents of violence or abuse towards retail workers are reported every single day. As someone who started their career in retail working on a shop floor in Kettering, I know the impact of intimidation and what it can do to someone who is just trying to do their job.
Retailers have spent a record £1.8 billion on crime prevention measures in just one year in the UK. Local businesses in Kettering, which are the backbone of our economy, should not have to invest in private security, additional shutters or panic buttons just to stay afloat. We need to create high streets where people, their families and their businesses can thrive. I know that my constituents will be glad to hear the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to our high streets today.
I stood on a manifesto that included a five-point plan for high streets, pledging to tackle antisocial behaviour with 13,000 more neighbourhood police and PCSOs by 2029. Those manifesto pledges have become the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, which introduces the biggest package of measures on crime and policing in decades, with 50 new laws, including giving police and others stronger powers by introducing respect orders to stamp out antisocial behaviour.
This debate is about not just crime statistics or police funding, but how we can protect what we value most in our communities: the right of everyone in Kettering and all our constituencies to feel safe where they live and work.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing the debate and on her excellent speech. I once lived in Erdington, and her constituents have a wonderful advocate in her. I hope I can call her a friend.
As all hon. Members agree, a visible police presence is essential to tackling crime on our streets and high streets. That is why I took the Mayor of London to court and stopped him from closing my local police station in the heart of Wimbledon, and why my constituents are still concerned about its long-term future. After a recent stabbing near a Co-op in Wimbledon, I received a letter from Jack, a pupil at Holy Trinity primary, who wrote:
“The relationship between local police officers and the community they serve is built on proximity and familiarity, and losing this presence could erode the sense of security we currently enjoy.”
When a young person feels the need to write to their MP about such matters, we should all take notice.
Years of cuts have eroded the link between the police and the public. Despite an increase in Government funding in the current police grant, it still falls short of the minimum that chief constables said they needed. For example, the Met, which serves Wimbledon, faces a £130 million shortfall. Just this week, Sir Mark Rowley and other police chiefs wrote to the Prime Minister to warn that, without proper funding, there will be “far-reaching consequences”. In short, these funding shortfalls risk undermining public confidence and the police’s ability to deter everyday crime.
Admittedly, the Home Secretary tried to reassure the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, two days ago that neighbourhood policing in London was safe, but sadly we have heard such reassurances before. It has now emerged that neighbourhood policing figures were artificially inflated under the Tories, with the Home Office now admitting that it over-reported numbers. In fact, England and Wales have more than 6,000 fewer neighbourhood officers than the Home Office previously claimed. Our communities were told they were better protected, but they knew that they were not. Nowhere is that more visible than on our high streets. In Wimbledon, there is now no dedicated town centre team, only a neighbourhood team stretched across a larger area. Without visible and trusted neighbourhood policing, crime flourishes and communities are left exposed.
We know that the demands of a busy town centre, retail crime, antisocial behaviour and the night-time economy exceed those of a residential neighbourhood, yet under the Met’s new ward shake up, there is still no confirmed timescale for when police teams will be redeployed, and there is no guarantee that high streets like Wimbledon’s will have dedicated officers. That is why the Liberal Democrat councillors in my area are campaigning for a dedicated town centre policing team in Wimbledon and a local policing hub in Old Malden, along with initiatives such as a town centre pop-up on Friday and Saturday nights and a night-time safety street stall. Those practical steps would restore safety, visibility and trust, but so far nothing has been done by the Labour-run Merton council to address Wimbledon’s policing needs.
I hope that Jack’s words ring loudly in the ears of the Government. If a child is asking who will protect them on their local high street and we cannot give them a clear answer, the system is broken and we must fix it together.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate.
Our high streets are key hubs in our communities, and it matters that people feel safe there, but unfortunately, during 14 years of Conservative austerity, we saw catastrophic cuts to the police service and the demise of neighbourhood policing. As that police presence on our high streets dwindled, we saw a significant increase in crime and a skyrocketing of antisocial behaviour statistics. To name just a few examples, that includes street drinking and drug use, retail theft and the abuse of shop workers.
Almost 444,000 shoplifting offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales in 2023-24, which is a record high, and the number of shop workers facing abuse and violence is ever increasing. As others have referenced, USDAW’s most recent survey of its members in 2024 indicated that violence against shop workers nearly doubled from the previous year, with 10% of respondents stating that they had been assaulted, 77% stating that they had experienced verbal abuse and 53% stating that they had been threatened by a customer.
I spoke to managers and workers from the Co-op in Caddington in my constituency, who told me about their experience of being subject to awful violence. I fully support USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign for shop workers, because everyone has the right to feel safe at work. That is why, among 50 new measures in our flagship Crime and Policing Bill, I am proud that we will protect our high streets and the people who work and shop there by ending the effective immunity for anyone caught shoplifting goods below £200, and by introducing a new criminal offence to better protect retail workers from assault.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does the hon. Lady recognise that if we make that a criminal offence, those cases will go to the Crown courts, which are all completely blocked? That allows people more time and is more likely to incentivise them to plead not guilty, because they know that buys them time. With shoplifting, we want to get them in quickly and ensure that they are prosecuted immediately, which I worry will not be the case unless we find another way—perhaps upping the magistrates courts.
Rachel Hopkins
The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. The measure will act as a deterrent, but I am sure the Minister has heard his well-made point.
Our safer streets mission is at the heart of this Government, and our neighbourhood policing guarantee will ensure that each neighbourhood has a named, contactable officer, which will help to restore trust. It will also include guaranteed police patrols in town centres and hotspots at peak times, as well as a dedicated antisocial behaviour lead in every force.
Great work is already being done in my constituency of Luton South and South Bedfordshire to restore faith in neighbourhood policing and increase the presence on our high streets through the Luton town centre taskforce, whereby Bedfordshire police works in collaboration with the Labour-led Luton borough council, the Luton BID, Luton Point and the Culture Trust, holding frequent patrols in an effort to make our town centre a safe and welcoming place for all. In the last two weeks alone, those efforts have been extremely successful, with the arrest of five suspected drug dealers in and around the town centre and over £4,000 in cash seized, as well as class A and class B drugs and knives. I take this opportunity to thank all those working on the frontline.
Town centre patrols will be ramped up further over the summer months, with Bedfordshire police expanding its team to combat drug offences, serious violence, thefts, begging, street drinking, noise nuisance, male violence against women and girls and exploitation via its Operation Foresight. I pay tribute to the work of our Labour police and crime commissioner in Bedfordshire, John Tizard. With his police and crime strategy for 2025-28, he committed to reinvigorating and strengthening local policing and police presence, with a particular emphasis on officers being visible and accessible to the public specifically in hotspot areas and on town centre patrols.
Like other hon. Members, I cannot talk about police presence without talking about police funding, and I am very grateful to the Minister for our previous conversations. All our efforts to make streets safer cannot be achieved without more funding for our police forces to ensure that they have the necessary resources. I campaigned for many years on that issue, and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) also spoke about funding earlier. I am pleased that this Labour Government have demonstrated a commitment to safer streets and more police in our communities as part of our core funding settlement. Bedfordshire police has been awarded £67.8 million, an increase of 6.6%, as well as £1.8 million in the neighbourhood policing guarantee funding for 2025-26.
Ben Obese-Jecty
As a Bedfordshire MP, does the hon. Lady agree that the south-east allowance that both Bedfordshire police and Hertfordshire police receive should be extended to Cambridgeshire police as part of the tri-force area, so that all three branches are paid equally for their work in that area, given that my officers serve in Bedfordshire as well?
Rachel Hopkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I will take the opportunity to reference the tri-force initiative that was brought about by a previous Labour police and crime commissioner, Olly Martins. I know that his initiative to get the three forces working together, particularly on specialist crime, has been instrumental in the point that I am about to move on to.
Our Labour Government have provided an additional £7.3 million in special grant funding. That will ensure continued support for key frontline operations, including Operation Costello, which aims to tackle serious and organised crime, and Boson, which targets guns, gun crime and youth violence in hotspot areas, including in Cambridgeshire through the tri-force initiative.
For too long, people have felt unsafe on their high streets. I support our Labour Government’s determination to tackle these issues head on, so that people in Luton South and South Bedfordshire and across the country see law and order restored and feel all the better for it.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes. If people want to intervene, I ask them to be very brief so that we can get everyone in.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate. She is a doughty champion for her constituents, who are lucky to have her. Whoever we are in this room, as MPs, we have probably at some point had an email from constituents asking about increased police presence on our high streets.
I am very lucky. I have Kilburn High Road in my constituency, which I share half and half with my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould). Ms Furniss, if you have not been to Kilburn High Road, you are missing out. It is affectionately called County Kilburn because of the thriving Irish community; we have a thriving Somali community on the other side as well. We serve Afghan food from Ariana and we have the award winning Kiln theatre. We have community festivals at Kilburn Grange Park, which hon. Members are also very welcome to attend.
But last month, we had six stabbings on Kilburn High Road and the community is shaken. I spoke to one of my residents, who says she never wanted to see what she saw—her neighbour being stabbed outside his corner shop, just because he tried to confront a shoplifter who was stealing food from the shop that he owns. One of the businessmen who I spoke to said, “It doesn’t feel like Kilburn any more.” A young mother who I spoke to said, “After 4 pm, I am scared to walk across and fetch my child from nursery because of the recent stabbings.”
The truth is that stabbings are not just a physical thing. They undermine community spirit and community resilience, and have a huge impact on the mental health of our community. Yesterday, my hon. Friend for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale and I went to the One Kilburn meeting. The community has come together under the leadership of Ajay, Stephane, Alan and Josie to reassure the community that we are here for them. There is an increase in community police officers on the high street—they do a fantastic job—but that cannot be a temporary measure. We have to make the community in Kilburn feel safe all the time.
I welcome the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, because it could not come sooner for our constituents. I say to the Minister, who I know is excellent at her job, that we have to have a guarantee that the scheme’s funding will be protected not just for all hon. Members in this room, but for all my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate, especially on Kilburn High Road.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing the debate.
It is a great honour for me to represent Bexleyheath and Crayford in Parliament. I was a councillor in the last Labour cabinet in Bexley, 20 years ago, when Ken Livingstone and Tony Blair launched neighbourhood policing in our borough. We saw the great impact that had on communities on the ground in the area I represent.
It is also a great honour for me because my first job during my 11 years in frontline retail was in the Marks and Spencer branch in Bexleyheath in my constituency. In my latter days in Marks and Sparks as a store manager, believe me, I saw and experienced many of the things that we have heard about today at first hand, including wrestling shoplifters to the ground.
When cuts to public services are made, as they were under the Tory Government when I first started at M&S in the early ’90s, and when there is rising poverty, that is when shoplifting and those frontline issues increase. It is an absolute mission of this Labour Government to restore neighbourhood policing, and we have been elected on a manifesto commitment to do so.
My constituency has two main town centres in Bexleyheath and Crayford, and a smaller neighbourhood centre in Northumberland Heath. In Crayford and Northumberland Heath, we now rely on smaller ward teams, of course, due to the cuts of the previous Mayor of London, who reduced the size of our teams. In Bexleyheath, I am lucky still to have a town centre team because of the size of shops, the night-time economy and the four secondary schools located in the town centre. I was pleased that we secured two more PCSOs for that team last November.
Our teams have had a number of recent successes. Live facial recognition saw three arrests in Bexleyheath town centre last week. Also last week, our team worked with the local authority on a closure order for a shop in Bexleyheath town centre that was selling illegal tobacco and vapes. Unlike the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), they have had great success in making shops report shoplifting again, and have managed to secure action against a number of individuals. In Crayford, they have taken action against drivers, predominantly from the large retail takeaways, which has led to 10 vehicles being seized and five arrests—two for shoplifting and three for immigration offences.
I pay tribute to the work of my police on the ground in Bexleyheath and Crayford. There is clearly pressure on funding, but we made a commitment to introduce extra police officers on the ground. We did that when Labour controlled Bexley council 20 years ago, and I am sure the Government will work with our Mayor of London to restore those numbers, because they are absolutely crucial for retailers in my constituency.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate.
We have heard countless times today that, in 14 years of Conservative government, neighbourhood policing was decimated to the detriment of our town centres and high streets, which are now gripped by an epidemic of antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting. Let me be frank: too often, the last Government wrote off those crimes as low level and left communities to pick up the pieces.
There are few places more visible in our communities than our high streets and town centres, which are vital for social and economic needs. National data suggests that police visibility in those spaces has reduced from 27% to 12% in the last decade. PCSOs are often on the frontline in those places, but they too have been cut to the bone: their numbers are down 56% since 2010.
In Uxbridge and South Ruislip, like many constituencies we have heard about today, shops are being ransacked multiple times a day, often by the same people, with little consequence. Supermarket staff in Uxbridge, Yiewsley and Ruislip Manor all tell me the same story. Whether it is men and boys on bikes grabbing phones, taking money from children, openly dealing drugs or engaging in shoplifting or theft, it is bad for business. It leads to more victims of crime and erodes trust and pride in our high streets.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to turn the situation around. The significant increase in real-terms funding for neighbourhood police officers nationally and in London is welcome. I also welcome the Crime and Policing Bill, which will lead to tougher action on theft and shoplifting, and will deal with the terrible crime of assaulting shop workers.
Anna Dixon
I recognise this issue, because many of my local independent shops in Bingley have been victims of crime, particularly by aggressive scammers demanding money. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that independent shops not only feel confident about reporting the crime, but know that the police will respond and that there will be prosecutions?
Danny Beales
I wholeheartedly agree. We need action: those individuals must be punished quickly, and the court backlogs must be dealt with. The whole process must incentivise action and deterrence.
When I met the couple who run the local post office in South Ruislip, they told me a heart-wrenching story of the change over the past 10 years. They have worked there for decades, and now they are threatened and abused almost weekly. Enough is enough.
I am pleased that the Government are taking action, but more can and, I am sure, will be done. I would like neighbourhood policing to continue to be prioritised, in order to deal with the capital policing challenges in London. Neighbourhood policing should be properly funded, as colleagues have said. I would like the police to regain a footprint in neighbourhoods. Lots of spaces where the police would base themselves closed down under the previous Conservative Mayor of London and Conservative Government. We have a fantastic neighbourhood town centre team in Uxbridge high street, which is doing great work, but we also need a town centre team in Yiewsley and West Drayton high street.
I hope the Government also consider providing support for the development of business crime prevention networks where there are not business improvement districts and more formal structures. Often, shops on smaller high streets are disparate and do not share information. They do not have the funding to focus on training, advice and crime prevention, so there is room for improvement in that space.
I would like to see the rapid deployment of the 13,000 new neighbourhood officers, with particular priority for our town centres and high streets. I hope that, under this Government, we will see a complete shift from the situation under the last Government. We must value our high streets and community policing, and not leave our communities alone. We need sustained, long-term investment to rebuild what the Conservatives destroyed so that we can once again be proud and safe on our high streets.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), whose tenacity in tackling this issue—with the ear of Simon Foster, our police and crime commissioner, and of the chief constable, Craig Guildford—has been outstanding. I have been watching the progress of Operation Fearless, and I thank and congratulate her for the work that she is doing.
I will take any opportunity to champion my local shops in Wednesfield high street—the village. It is a real source of pride, really community spirited and a welcoming place, but, like on high streets across the country, we have seen an alarming rise in shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. After more than a decade of police cuts, all this has become too common and far too normalised. From larger chain stores to the small, often family-run businesses across Wolverhampton North East, the message is the same: shopkeepers are fed up with thieves who show no respect for them or the law and who steal in broad daylight, sometimes swiping shelves clean to make a quick buck. Time and again, residents ask, “Why has this been allowed to spiral?” Well, after 14 years of cuts, our brilliant local officers and PCSOs—I would love to name them individually but I do not have the time—have been overstretched and under-resourced.
People want and deserve to feel safe. They need someone to finally listen to them, and under this Labour Government, that is exactly what is happening. I will continue to use my voice to speak for my community. A year ago, at the general election, we had 700 fewer officers and 500 fewer PCSOs in the west midlands than in 2010. That is being turned around thanks to the Home Secretary and the Government, with 150 new neighbourhood officers and 20 additional PCSOs. Much more needs to be done, but it has started.
After meeting Chief Superintendent Jenny Skyrme, I am pleased to announce that each of our eight wards in Wolverhampton North East will have a dedicated neighbourhood officer—a named officer, contactable by residents and ringfenced for that ward alone—with an additional role for Wednesfield high street. That will not solve everything overnight, but it is a start to restoring the bobby on the beat and a better focus on crime prevention.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) on securing this important debate. We know that visible local policing is key to building trust between communities and the police service. It acts as a deterrent to crime, reassures the public, and enables officers to gather intelligence and respond quickly to incidents before they escalate.
Just this weekend, I knocked on the door of Robin Kinson, who said he was delighted to see two police officers walking down his high street and could not remember the last time he had seen that. I must admit to feeling the same sort of flutter of delight when I saw two officers walking down my high street in Winton, which is a big change. Significant cuts to police numbers over the past decade have hampered the forces’ ability to maintain that visible presence.
Residents in Bournemouth West have told me repeatedly that they want to see more officers walking the beat and engaging with local businesses, young people and vulnerable groups, rather than arriving only after emergencies occur. Improving Bournemouth town centre has been a key campaign pledge of mine, and tackling crime and antisocial behaviour is absolutely a part of that. At recent residents’ meetings that we hosted, it was the No. 1 issue that residents told me they wanted us to tackle.
It is important to recognise the positives—the successes and the progress. Violent crime is down 21% on last year in Bournemouth. That is because of hotspot policing, for which Dorset police has just received more funding, and innovative collaboration between businesses, the police and our council. My office is in the town centre, so I see this every day. However, perception remains a major challenge, and the successes in the town centre often come at the expense of some of our other district centres.
Police presence is essential to changing that, but so is a joined-up strategy that includes investment in social services, youth provision and community support. Can the Minister therefore assure me that any new recruits will be properly trained and deployed in ways that maximise visibility in our high streets and community hubs, and that the Government will support forces in building stronger community relationships, especially in areas that have historically had mistrust as a result of under-policing?
The Minister knows that I have raised this issue before, but I want to highlight the challenge of seasonality. Many of my colleagues in coastal constituencies will recognise that Bournemouth, like other places, experiences a huge surge in population over the summer months, with millions of people visiting our beaches and town centres, yet Dorset police receives no extra funding to cope with the seasonal increase in demand. What work is being done to adjust the police funding formula to reflect those seasonal pressures, which place significant strain on policing in my constituency? Only by working together—Government, police and communities—will we restore confidence in our high streets as safe and welcoming places for all.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate.
The saying goes, “Money isn’t everything,” but it is when you have not got it, and in London, the Metropolitan police certainly has not got it. Having been forced to make £1.2 billion-worth of cuts over the last 14 years, the Metropolitan police has been stripped to its bones. We look forward, hopefully, to better days.
Police presence is about more than simply putting more uniformed officers on our streets or reopening police stations closed by years of Conservative budget cuts. It is about having officers on our streets that people can trust—officers that women and girls can trust to believe them and support them when they need it; officers that all communities can trust and will not unfairly target or profile some. It is about trusting that officers generally understand the neighbourhoods they serve. We need the right kind of police presence on our streets—one that is locally rooted, competent and visibly engaged. We need a force that understands the area, knows the crime hotspots and earns the trust of every resident, regardless of gender, race or background.
As council leader, I knew we could not accept the status quo that Conservative cuts were delivering. We needed to act locally to maintain meaningful police engagement with residents. In Redbridge, we implemented innovative enforcement and engagement hubs across the borough, including one mobile enforcement hub. Those low-cost alternatives to traditional stations are vital access points for our communities. They provide a place for residents to speak to officers, share concerns and build relationships, and, in turn, for officers to learn directly from the people they serve.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Southwark borough senior officers have closed the Seven Islands base and moved the local safer neighbourhood team to Borough station, which is, by their own account, more than 25 minutes’ drive away, in contradiction of the Metropolitan police’s 2017 public access strategy?
Jas Athwal
Absolutely. In Redbridge, we had to turn that around. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) will certainly agree with me, because we put a police hub in his constituency, which saved 4.5 full-time police officers’ time over the course of a year. We also introduced specific engagements, such as police walk and talks, which offer devoted time for officers to engage with those most underserved by police. Even amid devastating cuts, we showed that meaningful police presence is possible and necessary to keep our communities safe.
I welcome the Government’s steps to restoring meaningful police presence, including the £204 million in additional funding to the Metropolitan police laid out in the police grant report and the £22.8 million allocated for neighbourhood policing in the police funding settlement. However, reversing over a decade of damage is not simple. It requires more than just money. It requires bold reform that makes our police truly accountable and genuinely connected to our communities.
As we look ahead to the spending review, I urge the Government to not merely sustain, but substantially increase funding for the Metropolitan police. Police presence is not about visibility; it is about trust. It is about residents recognising their local officers and having the confidence that when they speak up about crime or harassment, they will be heard, believed and protected.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss—for the first time, in my case. I pay sincere and warm tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for her passionate speech and her huge dedication to the great work that has gone on in her constituency to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour on our high streets. In particular, she highlighted the great work done by local police officers on Operation Fearless, in conjunction with the local community. A key theme we have heard in this debate is the critical importance of not just looking to the police to sort these issues out, but working in partnership with retailers, communities and all people affected by crime.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) about his young constituent Jack, who represents that extremely important demographic of young people affected by crime, who will be left fearful for the future if we do not get a grip of it. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) rightly alluded to the underlying economic causes of crime. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for us to remember the words of a former Labour Prime Minister about being tough on not just crime, but the causes of crime. It is important that we take note of those underlying social and economic causes.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned the experience of New York. Some would argue that Rudy Giuliani has gone in a somewhat different direction since the height of his powers in the 1990s. In those days his “broken windows” theory of crime held that, as a number of Members have alluded to, if we do not tackle graffiti and other supposedly low-level manifestations of crime, we open the door—or indeed the broken window—for far more serious types of crime. That underlines another key theme we have heard: the role of prevention and taking preventive steps, rather than hoping to deal with the symptoms and consequences.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) also talked about the role of prevention and the importance of community services. She talked about the role of seasonality in crime, which is clearly important in many constituencies with major events, with summer traffic, or sometimes with worse weather leading to less crime because people are outdoors less. It is important that we recognise the trends in the data on what causes crime and what levels of intervention are needed.
The key theme discussed by nearly all Members was police numbers and funding. That includes the hon. Members for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). In that regard, we heard a lot of criticism of the previous Conservative Government.
However, we also heard some important points from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth West about the regionality of the police funding formula. We often face the key question of how to take account of different regional funding requirements in this country, so it would be interesting to see what the Minister has to say about that. We also heard about the impact of antisocial behaviour and crime on people, its economic impact on retailers and it impact on their mental health and feelings of safety and security in their role. All that contributes to the wider sense of our high streets being in decline; if people do not feel that they are safe places, they will not go and shop there. We must be careful not to end up in vicious circle.
We heard from hon. Members about the importance of having named and contactable police offers. It is not just about having visible police officers in the streets; it is important, as the hon. Member for Ilford South said with particular eloquence, that those police officers are embedded within their community and really understand its diversity and differing requirements. Many hon. Members paid tribute to the shop owners affected by crime and the police officers who work so hard to try to keep our streets safe. It is important that we support them, both with more resources and with public displays of support.
Many of the same issues are manifested in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, where communities are concerned about increased antisocial behaviour in the town centres of Wallingford, Wantage and Didcot—particularly increased pickpocketing and shoplifting. Last year, reports of antisocial behaviour at a local event in Didcot meant that the police had to authorise a section 34 dispersal order, empowering officers to issue section 35 orders to remove individuals suspected of being involved in antisocial behaviour. Of course such events are not representative of our high street, but the fact that they are becoming more of a concern to people means that we must take action.
I have met business owners on Didcot Broadway—an older part of my town, from before the town of Didcot and large retail centres arose—who feel that the combination of antisocial behaviour and larger retail developments are placing their businesses at risk. That problem is shared by the Orchard centre, the large shopping centre in Didcot, where there is also widespread concern about antisocial behaviour and that there is not enough for young people to do.
I have also heard high street businesses complain about drug dealing, street drinking and bicycle theft. As we heard in this debate, ambitions on law and order are good—but ambitious plans need to be supported by ambitious funding. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the early work that the Government have done on this, and we look forward to hearing more from the Minister.
Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and when walking down their streets; that is important not just for their safety, but for their feelings of economic confidence, so that we can address the decline in our high streets. The previous Conservative Government failed to keep our communities safe from crime, and unnecessary cuts left our police forces overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect our communities most.
Every day, 6,000 cases are closed by the police across England and Wales without a suspect even being identified, according to Home Office figures. Meanwhile, just 6% of crimes reported to the police result in a suspect being charged. Three in four burglaries and car thefts also go unsolved, and the Conservatives slashed the number of police community support officers by more than 4,500 since 2015. The Government must continue their efforts to restore the proper community policing that local people deserve.
To do that, we must get more police officers out on the streets, embedded in and understanding their communities. We Liberal Democrats feel that that could partly be funded by scrapping the expensive police and crime commissioner experiment and investing those savings in frontline policing instead, including addressing the dramatic cuts to PCSO numbers.
At the same time, we would free up existing officers’ time to focus on local policing by creating a new national online crime agency that would take over issues such as online fraud and abuse, leaving more time for local forces to tackle burglaries and other neighbourhood crimes. As we have heard, prevention and early intervention are key, not just visible crime.
Neil Coyle
Can the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Lib Dem position has changed since they introduced police and crime commissioners? Did he describe the cuts in officers as unnecessary, and is he putting on record an apology from the Liberal Democrats for cutting police officers in constituencies such as mine, where we still have fewer police officers in 2025 than we did in 2010, thanks to the coalition Government that the Liberal Democrats were fully embedded in?
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—[Interruption.] Well, I will answer in good time. Of course it would not be a debate in this place without him having a pop at the Liberal Democrats in Government. As he will appreciate from the many councils where Labour is in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and other parties, when a party does not win a majority, it has to work in partnership with others. I would also remind him to have a read of his own party’s 2010 manifesto, which proposed cuts just as harsh as the Conservatives’.
But let us look to the future, not the past. In terms of retail crime, there are significant concerns over the increase in shoplifting. Official statistics from the crime survey for England and Wales showed more than half a million shoplifting offences recorded by police forces in the year ending 2024, an 18% increase on the previous year and the highest figure since current recording practices began.
Surveys of retailers indicate a high prevalence of shoplifting and violence towards shop workers, as we have heard, and there have been concerns about how the police respond to shoplifting. For example, the 2025 British Retail Consortium’s Retail Crime survey found that 61% of retailers considered the police response to incidents of retail crime to be poor or very poor. Retailers said that their lack of confidence in the police response to reports of shoplifting contributed to their decision not to report some incidents.
As we have heard, antisocial behaviour can encompass a wide range of actions that cause nuisance and harm to others, such as vandalism, noise nuisance, threatening behaviour, use of off-road bikes, drug use and harassment. The 2024 crime survey for England and Wales suggested that 36% of people had experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, and around 1 million incidents are reported to the police each year. However, YouGov research suggests that there is significant under-reporting, with 57% of victims or witnesses not reporting ASB at all. The Victims’ Commissioner has long raised concerns that the police and other agencies are not able to respond effectively to such reports or to provide support to victims.
In conclusion, while we all agree that money and police resources are important, they will only get us so far. We also need prevention and early intervention, intelligence, partnerships and community action.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for securing this important debate and for her passionate work on this subject. In fact, I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions to this debate. I welcome the news that the brother of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has joined up to the police force, particularly as he has done so in Durham—on my streets, no less. We all know the brilliant work that our hard-working police officers, PCSOs and civil enforcement officers do to protect our high streets and local communities. The police put themselves in dangerous situations to stop the criminals who blight our communities and undermine the social fabric that binds them together. Although it is welcome that headline figures from the crime survey for England and Wales show that crime fell by more than 50% between 2010 and 2024, there is still much more to be done, and protecting our high streets is an integral part of that mission.
I have the honour of representing Stockton, whose high street is a great place and home to some incredible businesses. I will always encourage people to support them, but I would fail in my duty if I did not acknowledge or try to tackle the many challenges they face. If my grandparents were alive today, they would be devastated to see what has become of our high street. Over decades, Stockton’s Labour council has allowed it to decline and to become home to unacceptable levels of crime and antisocial behaviour. Instead of employing more civil enforcement officers and street wardens, the council chooses to employ a huge number of managers on £100k-plus salaries—it recently came to light that it had spent £15.8 million on recruitment consultants in the last three years.
Daniel Francis
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the cuts from the previous Government have resulted in my local authority, the London borough of Bexley, having to make every one of its CCTV staff redundant, so that the council is no longer able to assist the police in fighting crime?
Matt Vickers
It is incredibly important that whatever money councils have is put to good use. In Stockton, we have terrible examples: people being flown abroad to watch shows to scout for festival appearances, and the CEO of the council recruiting a chum of his on £900 a day, without it ever being seen and considered by the council. Councils have a responsibility to spend properly the money that is given to them, and in Stockton there are too many examples where that is not the case.
Instead of the council using all the powers available through public spaces protection orders to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, its soft approach means that lots of antisocial behaviour has gone unchallenged. Moreover, Stockton’s Labour council volunteered as a dispersal authority, taking a completely disproportionate number of asylum seekers. For many years it has had one of the highest asylum seeker-to-resident ratios of any local authority across the entire country. Those asylum seekers are all housed near the town centre, creating challenges in accommodation, public services, and integration, and leaving huge numbers of lone men hanging around the town centre. The situation is made worse by the council’s approach to housing, which allows huge amounts of houses in multiple occupation, bedsits and bail accommodation to emerge around the town centre.
I will continue to push the council and local police for more action to support Stockton’s fantastic high street and the incredible businesses therein. Before addressing the police’s specific role in protecting the great British high street, we must acknowledge the challenges facing our high streets as a result of this Labour Government’s actions. The Government’s jobs tax and the slashing of small businesses—well, of small business rate relief, though actually they are slashing small businesses—is putting the survival of many of our high street businesses at risk. Confidence has been sapped, and in April business confidence once again turned negative.
The Government will always have the support of the Conservative party in backing our hard-working police officers. We need more officers than ever. It was interesting to hear, during Home Office questions, the Minister and the Home Secretary reading with some excitement a table listing the number of neighbourhood policing officers in each area. How many more police officers—those who can arrest the most serious criminals in our society—does the Minister expect to be in place by the end of the year? Will that number exceed the March 2024 figure?
This discussion comes against the backdrop of six of Britain’s most senior police chiefs warning that important and laudable ambitions to tackle knife crime, violence against women and girls, and neighbourhood policing are all at risk because of funding shortfalls. The Government’s decision to let criminals out of prison early, many of whom will inevitably commit more crime, will put more pressure on our police.
The proposed settlement for policing in 2025-26 is insufficient and risks causing job losses. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has said that his force is facing the potential loss of 1,700 officers, PCSOs and other staff. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that Sir Mark’s figures are correct.
Special constables are invaluable, but we also need full-time officers to investigate serious crimes and secure convictions against the worst offenders on our high streets. That is critical; the public expect not only a police presence, but effective action. Although we were pleased to agree on stronger laws in the Crime and Policing Bill to address offences on our high streets, such laws are meaningless without proper enforcement and punishment. Having spent a long time campaigning alongside the likes of the Co-op, the BRC and USDAW, I am delighted to see the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker on the statute book.
On policing our high streets. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on recent remarks made by the Mayor of London and his Drugs Commission. Within the mayor’s expression of support for the proposal to decriminalise possession of small amounts of cannabis, there were concerning references to police stop-and-search powers, in which he questioned the scope of their application. Frankly, that is extraordinary, reflecting a worrying disregard for public spaces such as our high streets, where all of us should expect to feel safe. I hope that the Minister will condemn those comments in the strongest possible terms and send a message to our hard-working police officers that stop and search is a vital tool in their armour, and that we entirely support them in using it.
This week, I met representatives of the Federation of Independent Retailers, who shared their experiences of retail crime and the way that the use of in-store facial recognition and AI technology is making a real difference. They suggested that a grant scheme could help them to take the fight to criminals; I would be delighted to hear whether the Minister has given any consideration to introducing such a scheme.
In conclusion, we should celebrate the work of the hard-working police on our streets and of the retail workers in our stores, but we must remember the challenges that they face because of the decisions of this Government. High streets are at the heart of our local communities. The Government must do much more to ensure that they are safe and thriving places that people want to visit.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Furniss.
I start, of course, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for making such a passionate and eloquent speech on behalf of her constituents, and for what she said about her fight—indeed, her mission—to take back Erdington High Street. I think she said that she wanted to make her voice and her community’s voice heard; she has certainly done that this afternoon. It was clear that Erdington deserved better than it was getting and she has delivered that improvement, so she should be very proud of that.
It has been a really wide-ranging debate with lots of local and national flavour. Many different areas and constituencies have been referred to, and I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken today. The fact that it has been such a comprehensive debate reflects the significance that is attached to these issues by us as parliamentarians and by our constituents.
Before I respond to some of the specific points that were raised, I will be really clear about this Government’s position. We believe wholeheartedly and unreservedly in the value of a visible and responsive police presence in our communities. As we have heard, that is especially important on high streets and in town centres.
It is very encouraging indeed to hear about initiatives that have made a real difference, such as Operation Fearless in Erdington, in Birmingham. As I have already said, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for her work. I also commend the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, the chief constable of West Midlands police, Craig Guildford, and the assistant chief constable, Jen Mattinson, for driving this initiative forward for the community.
Across the country, however, far more needs to be done, and we need to build on the work of Operation Fearless and similar operations around the country. In recent years, too many neighbourhoods have been plagued by antisocial behaviour and crime, with shoplifting and street theft in particular surging. As those offences have shot up, we all know the reality—neighbourhood policing was eroded under previous Governments. Actually, let us be clear: it was slashed by previous Governments.
The impact of that is very well documented. Across the country, the belief set in among local businesses and residents that police were not on the streets. Antisocial behaviour and shop theft were treated as low level, and if people called the police, nobody came and nothing was done.
I think we all agree now that that is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed. That is why this Government have made rebuilding neighbourhood policing a focus of our safer streets mission, which is central to the Prime Minister’s plan for change. Under the mission, we are aiming to halve violence against women and girls and knife crime in a decade, tackle shop theft, street crime and antisocial behaviour, and improve trust in the criminal justice system. All those aims are tied in some way to another of the mission’s core strands: rebuilding the neighbourhood policing model. Without a strong local police footprint, our communities are left exposed and people suffer. Put simply, neighbourhood policing is the beating heart of our law enforcement system. After years of neglect, this Government will restore it to full health.
I also want to make a comment about police funding and resources, because a number of hon. Members have talked about that this afternoon. Clearly, the funding formula is the one we inherited. We have been in power for 11 months, but we have been clear that we will embark on police reform, and there is a White Paper coming in the next few months. I want to make clear to hon. Members this afternoon that, within that, there will undoubtedly have to be a discussion about finances and resources for policing.
Let me turn to the points that have been raised. We have already made £200 million available to forces to kick-start year one of our programme, which will support the first step of delivering 13,000 additional officers into neighbourhood policing roles. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I welcome PC Coyle to his new role in Durham. I also pay tribute to all our police officers, who work for us day in, day out, particularly the neighbourhood police officers I met this morning in Milton Keynes, who were doing a fantastic job for their community. Our approach to delivering on the 13,000 in 2025-26 has been designed to deliver an initial increase to the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and the varied crime demands in certain neighbourhoods. Police forces have embraced that and want to make a positive start towards achieving the goal of 13,000 additional neighbourhood officers by the end of this Parliament.
The neighbourhood policing guarantee was announced by the Prime Minister on 10 April. He said that, along with the Home Secretary, he had written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners, setting out key objectives. The guarantee aims to reverse the decline in visible policing through clear commitments, designed with the support of policing, to be achieved throughout the course of this Parliament. By July, every neighbourhood throughout England and Wales will have named contactable officers. These officers will know their areas and build relationships with residents and businesses, and they will understand local concerns. In too many instances in the past, residents felt they had no one to go to. By July, there will be a guaranteed response time to local neighbourhood police queries from members of the public and businesses of 72 hours.
Having committed to these steps, it is now down to Government and policing to deliver on them. We expect that by July, all police forces will be able to demonstrate that that commitment to the guarantee has been achieved. Additionally, the College of Policing will begin the national roll-out of its neighbourhood policing training programme during the neighbourhood policing week of action in June. The training will equip officers with essential skills, such as problem solving, relationship building and crime prevention, to effectively tackle local issues and enhance community engagement. This dedicated training aims to transform neighbourhood policing services, ensuring trusted and effective policing that cuts crime and keeps people safe. There is also the hotspot action programme, which focuses on particular hotspots and really putting in the resources—it sounds very similar to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington referred to.
I want to make some comments about retail crime. It has been very helpful to hear from Members today who have experience of the retail sector. We know that in the last two years of the previous Government, shop theft soared by 70%. There is an epidemic in shop theft, and we need to do something about it. As has been said, in the Crime and Policing Bill we have brought forward a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, after years of campaigning by USDAW and the Co-op, among others.
Also included as part of the Bill is the removal of the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, which meant that it could only be tried in the magistrates court. This sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I noted what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about that, but there is a deterrent in this, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins). It is about saying that shop theft of any value is theft, and action will be taken. We still expect that the vast majority of cases will be heard in the magistrates court—[Interruption.] I do not have time for an intervention, but I am happy to discuss it with Members after the debate.
There is also additional funding going into the National Police Chiefs’ Council to give further training to police and retailers on preventive tactics. We are putting £5 million into the specialist analyst team within Opal, which is the national policing intelligence unit dealing with the serious organised criminal gangs that are now getting involved in shop theft. There will also be £2 million over the next three years for the National Business Crime Centre, which provides a resource for both police and businesses to learn, share and support each other to prevent and combat crime. We also have the retail crime forum with representatives from major businesses, which I chair.
We are determined that this summer, for the next three months starting at the end of this month, we will put increasing the safety of our town centres and high streets under the microscope, in partnership with PCCs, councils, schools, health services, businesses, transport and community organisations. I am aware that tackling criminality and antisocial behaviour in town centres is already a focus for many police forces, but we need to do more and go quicker. We have to take that action, and I look forward to the plans that PCCs have been drawing up and will be providing to the Home Office in the next few days. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington for calling this debate, as it is an issue that every Member of this House cares passionately about.
Paulette Hamilton
Your chairing today has been excellent, Ms Furniss, and I hope to take part in many more debates with you in the Chair. I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members for taking part in this debate. I also thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), and give thanks to the Minister, who I felt gave a strong response.
The clear message highlighted today is that high streets are the beating hearts of our communities, and that constituents want to feel safe on them. It is also key that the police are funded to do the job. I join Members in paying tribute to the police and their partners, who work so tirelessly to keep our high streets clean and safe.
Finally, this is a very special debate because it is about people’s lives. Members have to work together—hon. Members, right hon. Members, the Opposition and Ministers—to ensure that our residents feel that we not only care but are listening and will answer the cry for help.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered police presence on high streets.
Maths: Contribution to the UK
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of maths to the UK.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate, the Members who put their names to the application and those present today. I look forward to hearing their contributions.
A mathematician often begins with a conjecture—a statement that they believe to be true, a theory that is perhaps well informed by evidence but has yet to be widely accepted, thoroughly proven and fully implemented. If I had a blackboard, this is the theory that I would write up: that a thriving maths ecosystem is fundamental to the Government’s growth ambitions.
I have a deep affection for mathematics, and that may have led me to prepare rather more material than is customary for a Westminster Hall debate, but given the numbers in attendance I hope that Members will indulge me. There is something profoundly satisfying—to me, at least—about how mathematical problems yield to patient reasoning and how seemingly unrelated concepts can connect in unexpected ways. While my days of wrestling with differential equations are largely behind me, the habits of mind that mathematics taught me—breaking down complex problems, testing assumptions and seeking elegant solutions—remain with me in every aspect of my work, including in Parliament.
There is compelling evidence for my opening conjecture. In 2023, mathematical sciences contributed £495 billion to our economy: that is 20% of the UK’s total gross value added. To put that in context, mathematical sciences contribute more to our economy than the entire manufacturing sector. That figure is almost certainly an underestimate, as it does not capture the many downstream benefits of mathematics. The algorithms and encryption that empower and enable safe access to the internet, which are so fundamental to nearly every business across the country, are all built from mathematical foundations.
The impact is accelerating. According to research from the Campaign for Mathematical Sciences, between 2019 and 2023 there was a 6.2% increase in the proportion of jobs requiring undergraduate-level mathematics skills across all sectors, and 94% of employers anticipate placing at least as much emphasis on these skills, if not more, when hiring in the next couple of years. Whether it is the artificial intelligence revolution that will have an impact on healthcare, the quantum computing that will transform cybersecurity or the climate models guiding our path to net zero, mathematics is not just contributing to our present economy—it is building our future.
There is every reason to be optimistic about the next generation. Mathematics remains the most popular A-level subject, with over 100,000 students choosing it last year. That is more than ever before. Those young people clearly see mathematics as part of the future, and rightly so.
Britain has always been a mathematical powerhouse. We may be small by population on the global stage, but we are mighty—particularly in our research activity. The UK is home to 4% of the world’s mathematical sciences researchers, but their output represents 14% of highly cited articles. We are a global centre of excellence for mathematical sciences research, with top-ranked universities and research institutes, and some of the fastest-growing tech companies. In fact, according to the global innovation index, the UK is home to the world’s No. 1 science and technology cluster by intensity, in relation to its size: Cambridge. It is a privilege to represent part of that cluster.
From Newton’s laws to Turing’s machines, from Bayes’s theorem—a personal favourite to mine—to Hawking’s insights into black holes, which are possibly a personal favourite of the Chancellor’s, British mathematicians have repeatedly changed how we understand and interact with our world. Today, that tradition continues. Our cryptographers protect national security: GCHQ remains one of the UK’s largest recruiters of pure mathematicians. Our financial modellers help manage trillions in global assets, and our data scientists are revolutionising everything from drug discovery to climate science.
However, despite that remarkable heritage and current strength, we risk undermining our mathematical future through policies that, I accept, reflect difficult choices but seem to work against our mathematical advantages on the global stage. In their plan for change, the Government promised growth. They promised to raise living standards, revive our NHS, drive research and innovation, and deliver economic stability. Yet if mathematics underlies so much of the innovation that will be key to delivering those aims, some of the recent policy decisions represent what Marcus du Sautoy, Simonyi professor for the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford, has called a “national miscalculation”.
The cuts to the advanced mathematics support programme, universities across the country shrinking and closing mathematics departments, the cancellation of the exascale supercomputer in Edinburgh and real-terms cuts to the UK Research and Innovation budget for 2025-26 are just some of the concerning decisions. I acknowledge that they span multiple Governments, but cumulatively they risk creating a mathematical recession just when the global economy is becoming increasingly mathematical.
My asks for our mathematical future break down into three strands: research funding, higher education and mathematics in schools. The Government have ambitious and admirable aims, but real growth is simply not possible without an adequate pipeline of mathematicians and advanced mathematical skills. Continuing to attract the extremely productive researchers who bring so much economic benefit and soft power to our country should be a national priority. To that end, in 2020 the previous Government announced a welcome additional £300 million in Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funding for the mathematical sciences to be deployed over five years, but only about 40% of that total was ultimately allocated.
At a glance, to the casual observer, it may not be obvious what £300 million of funding for PhD and postdoctoral study in such seemingly abstract disciplines as geometry, topology, algebra, combinatorics and number theory might mean for our country, but the impact of those studies is often much more long-term than successive Governments seem to realise. Once-abstract domains often become integral to new technologies in ways that have not been predicted. To name just one crucial example, computer scientists are increasingly looking to pure mathematicians to help them understand their own machine learning models.
Despite the Government’s determination that AI is vital to turbocharge every mission in its plan for change, from driving down NHS waiting lists to speeding up cancer diagnoses and saving time across the civil service, there appears to be a disconnect between that ambition and the long-term investment needed in the mathematical sciences to achieve those goals. The number of UK centres for doctoral training in the mathematical sciences has fallen from 11 to five, and the latest allocation of UKRI funding represents a real-terms funding cut, which will constrain the UK’s research output. Rather than continuing to pull the rug from under those who are constructing the backbone of our future technologies, would the Government consider exploring a new funding settlement that better reflects the value of the mathematical sciences and what they bring to the UK? Investment in mathematical sciences to fuel the UK’s growth needs to be far longer term than simply increasing postgraduate research funding contracts in the near term. That leads me to the second strand that I want to pick up: higher and post-16 education.
Ensuring the best possible mathematics education for students post 16 is crucial to strengthening the wider graduate pipeline. Boosting progression to mathematics degrees should be a key part of the Government’s growth strategy, I would suggest. With a sharp drop in UK mathematics undergraduate entrants expected over the next 10 years, from just under 7,100 to just over 5,600 by 2035—that is the forecast difference between 2030 and 2035—we seem to face a crisis in the mathematical pipeline, and that trend particularly affects mid and lower tariff institutions, where it is over three times more likely that students will go on to become teachers post-graduation.
When universities close maths departments, we do not just lose degree places; we lose the next generation of mathematics teachers. Specialist post-16 institutions, such as the Cambridge maths school, which serves many young people in my constituency, are fighting to increase access to science, technology, engineering and maths degrees. They recognise that investment in STEM education is vital to the UK’s future workforce. Through nurturing ambition, particularly among students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds, they are seeing impressive results, and I would like to share some of those: students with special educational needs and disabilities at the school represent double the national proportion of A-level further mathematics students; 8% of students have an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis compared with around 1% nationally, and those students are predicted to achieve an average grade of A*; and 46% of current year 12 students are female, which is remarkable given the national underrepresentation of women in advanced mathematics.
It is through not just excellent teaching that these young people are excelling, but targeted initiatives for inclusion. Cambridge maths school runs an access and application support programme that funds travel bursaries, test preparation support and interview coaching to remove barriers for disadvantaged students from across the east of England, but that support is precarious without solid Government backing. The disappearance of the pupil premium post 16, the school reports, is a significant oversight at a critical stage of education, particularly in specialist settings. On that basis, might the Government consider the merits of providing some ringfenced funding for access and outreach initiatives to recognise and protect the role of specialist post-16 institutions in driving social mobility and mathematical excellence?
The Campaign for Mathematical Sciences is also working to boost uptake of university mathematics courses through its maths degrees for the future scheme, which is rewarding universities that show genuine commitment to increasing the accessibility of their mathematics courses and those that commit to equipping undergraduates with the flexibility and foundational skills to move into a wide range of future careers. There are grants of up to £500,000, but that on its own will not be enough to support the sector. I hope that the Government will show the same commitment to the future of mathematical sciences that the universities winning those grants are demonstrating.
To move further back in the pipeline, to mathematics in schools, the Government have significantly scaled back the advanced mathematics support programme. In response to my written question, the Minister confirmed that with reduced funding of £8.2 million for 2025-26, the programme must now focus on narrower areas:
“supporting schools with low girls’ progression to level 3 mathematics”,
helping “disadvantaged students” and artificial intelligence-related skills. Although those priorities are extremely important, that nevertheless represents a fundamental reduction from the comprehensive programme that, since 2009, has increased A-level mathematics entries by nearly 40,000. The programme can no longer provide the broad-based support that it once did, and with funding beyond 2026 subject to spending review, there is ongoing uncertainty about its future. Although I understand that it makes the best of difficult circumstances, will the Minister acknowledge that that refocusing represents a significant reduction in our national commitment to mathematics education at precisely the time that we need to be expanding it?
Mathematics teaching is another pressing concern and the forecast decline in undergraduate numbers that I mentioned is even more rapid at mid and lower-tariff institutions. As I have said, those are the ones where it is far more likely that their students will become teachers post-graduation. I declare an interest as a governor of the Cambridge Maths Hub, a group that fosters professional dialogue about mathematics teaching between schools in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Norfolk and Suffolk. To quote the hub
“quality teaching is led by expert questioning, predicting, exposing and correcting misconceptions, and designing work that challenges students so they experience success when they apply their knowledge and think mathematically.”
To me and many others, that could be reframed by saying that mathematics teaching is best performed by mathematics graduates.
How will the Government work with universities to ensure that strong mathematics provision continues in every region? Could the Minister outline how mathematics teachers might be prioritised in the strategy to recruit 6,500 new teachers? Beyond that, I hope that the Government will examine what is being studied, as well as schools’ capacity to deliver the education. The current pass rate for GCSE mathematics retakes is one area of concern, with only just over 17% of nearly 200,000 post-16 entrants achieving grade 4 or above.
The Maths Horizons project recently found that 82% of polled teachers think that there is too much content on the national curriculum, and that that is impeding the success of many students. It argues the national curriculum still does not appropriately prioritise “teaching for mastery” and rigour, despite the efforts of the 2014 reforms to key stage 4 mathematics. On that basis, I hope that the Government will consider taking on board the findings of that Maths Horizons project research in its curriculum and assessment review and to find ways to rebalance—not cut down—the mathematics curriculum in schools.
If the UK is to remain a world-beating hub for research, innovation and growth, we must nurture mathematical excellence right from the beginning. The skills of logical reasoning, problem solving and analytical thinking that mathematics develops are not just useful for future mathematicians, but essential for all citizens in an increasingly complex world.
Mathematics is too important to be left to chance or to be treated piecemeal. We need a national strategy for mathematics with a comprehensive approach that recognises the fundamental role of mathematical thinking in everything from personal finance right through to national security, and from healthcare innovation to other areas of science. Such a strategy would co-ordinate efforts across the three areas I have outlined. It would ensure that our research base remains world leading, support our universities to maintain and expand mathematics provision, and give every child the mathematical foundation they need to thrive. It would recognise that mathematical skills are not just about producing more mathematicians, though we do desperately need them, but about maintaining our competitive edge in an increasingly quantitative world.
My asks have been multiple, from strengthening foundational mathematical knowledge in primary and secondary schools and widening access to mathematical sciences courses in universities to funding our research sector for the years to come. The Government must urgently examine every stage of the mathematical skills pipeline in detail and introduce a national strategy for mathematics to secure our future.
The Government have set out ambitious goals for growth, innovation and improved living standards. Mathematics is not just relevant to these aims; it is absolutely integral to them, as I have argued. To achieve growth, we need mathematicians, and for the UK to develop the best mathematicians, the sector needs strategy, investment and sustained attention. That is my conjecture on my imaginary blackboard. I hope I have gone some way to providing the supporting evidence for it, and I hope the Government will take up the challenge of providing the proof.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for bringing this debate to the House. There may be plenty of things we disagree on, but when it comes to maths, I am sin2θ and he is cos2θ, and together we are at one. There are a lot more of those jokes to come, Mr Vickers.
I am a former maths teacher, I am married to a maths teacher and I am looking forward to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) commenting on how good the maths teachers are in her constituency. In fact, when I first met my wife—this is a little bit raunchy—I told her she was 1/cos C. Only the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and I will get these jokes, unfortunately; I apologise that my speech is not going to be at the same intellectual level as that of the hon. Gentleman.
I taught secondary school maths in schools across Essex, and the two things students most often asked were a) “When are we going to use this in real life?”, and b) “Will this be on the exam?”. I am genuinely passionate about maths, not because it is on the exam or because there is a problem to be solved, but because maths in itself is a beautiful thing and something that we should enjoy. Those questions were therefore incredibly frustrating.
After part a), they would sometimes add another line: “When will we use this in real life? And don’t say engineering.” I have to say to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that I was not a maths graduate—I was actually an engineering graduate, but I think he will understand. There is a lot of maths in engineering, and I was wholly qualified to teach it. I genuinely believe that we should love maths and not see it as a challenge to overcome but a tool to help us. I do not want to write a shopping list that says I am buying six apples and five bananas if I can use a and b instead. That is really important.
On part b), one of my favourite things to teach, which is not on the curriculum, is the Fibonacci sequence. When I teach the Fibonacci sequence, I show pupils how that leads on to the golden ratio and how the golden ratio applies in real life to the shape of leaves or seashells, or to the amount of bees that live in a hive. In fact, Liz Hurley can be compared to the golden ratio. On literature, paper sizes are based around the golden ratio. When we read a book, we are likely to find that something significant happens around 61.8% of the way through, because this is a really important ratio. It is not just mathematical—it occurs in real life. I genuinely think that is interesting. I want to emphasise that we have a habit of talking about maths as a kind of challenge—almost a monster in the room—but it is not. It should be seen as our friend.
The question of the role of maths in the UK is substantial, so I have thought about it a little more at the local level as being about the use of maths in Harlow. Hon. Members will be aware that Harlow is the home of Hannah Fry, who shares my passion for mathematics. It is also where George Hockham and Charles Kao invented the fibre-optic cable. It is fair to say that such an invention could not have happened without the use of applied mathematics. In fact, any business, school or organisation in Harlow will rely on maths, whether that is to fill out tax returns or produce wage slips. Maths is absolutely everywhere.
I find that one of the biggest frustrations with maths is that it seems to be acceptable for adults to say, “I’m not very good at maths.” When I was a teacher, some colleagues and senior colleagues said it. In one of the schools I worked at—I will not name which—one of the deputy heads, a fantastic English teacher, proudly said on stage in front of students, “I was never very good at maths.” Imagine the impact that had on young people, who were perhaps already struggling with maths, about the importance of learning it.
I am not saying it is right to criticise people who struggle to read or spell, but I am pretty confident that someone would not say that in the same way they are happy to say that they are not very good at maths. I appreciate I am talking in jest a little, but I hope the Minister will take from my speech the hope that we can challenge that misconception and say that it is important to be able to do maths, as the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned.
I was not going to be too political, but in preparation for hearing the shadow spokesman claim that we have never had it so good on maths teaching as we did under his Government, I say to him that that is as imaginary as the square root of minus one. I respectfully point out that the number of qualified maths teachers—yes, I am one of them—went down under his Administration. More and more, schools were forced to rely on non-specialists to teach maths. Some did so very successfully, but clearly when it comes to higher-level maths—A-level maths and A-level further maths—we want specialist teachers, even if they are engineering graduates, to tackle that.
I welcome the fact that the Government have started to bring confidence back into the teaching profession and, dare I say, that with today’s announcement, they will also ensure that the young people we teach have full bellies and are able to learn. I will finish on a positive note. As a sci-fi fan, I welcome the fact that, if we ever meet alien life forms, it will be mathematics that serves as our common language.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this debate. It is heartening to hear about his love of maths as well as the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
I have to confess that was not my experience of school. I was at a school which had a quirk: we had to sit maths GCSE twice—once in year 10 and in year 11. Although I can report to the House that I achieved a good grade in both exams, there was a clear narrative: that maths was a difficult subject, and definitely not for everyone. A lack of enthusiasm for the subject certainly pervaded among many of my peers and was allowed to go unchecked within the education system at large. I do not blame only my school for that; I think it was a common thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said, we need to challenge that. I have done the best to challenge it with my daughters, the youngest of whom sat her maths GCSE paper yesterday, so we will see whether I have been successful.
We must have an approach that emphasises the critical importance of maths in our primary and secondary education systems and its foundational nature for so many aspects of education and life, and that also encourages a love of maths as part of a love of learning. Maths is key to problem solving and supports logistical reasoning and analytical thinking. It develops flexible thinking and creativity. Mathematical problems often require trying different approaches and tackling a question from multiple angles. Those skills equally apply in arts and the humanities subjects as they do in the maths and sciences. Maths is therefore foundational in building those essential critical skills.
The practical applications of maths matter too. Financial literacy is important for us all. The Education Committee undertook an inquiry into financial literacy in May last year, in the previous Parliament, and recommended expanding financial education at primary level, the appointment of financial education co-ordinators in secondary schools and the provision of high-quality independently provided learning materials in all schools. Budgeting and saving, planning finances for the future, understanding how loans and interest work, and contributing to a pension pot are all skills that every young person should have when they leave school.
Maths is a specialist subject, and we need skilled teachers to deliver interesting and inspiring lessons from reception all the way through to A-levels and on to higher education. There have been real challenges with the recruitment of new maths teachers for a number of years, with just under three quarters of the target of 3,000 teachers recruited for the current academic year. There are so many career opportunities open to graduates with degrees with a strong mathematical component, so it is important that the Department for Education offers strong incentives to train, recruit and retain maths teachers. I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering an extra 6,500 teachers in England. It is critical that that target includes a good level of new maths teachers, appropriately supported to be recruited and retained within our education system.
I turn briefly to the question of attainment in mathematics. Last year, 65% of pupils achieved a standard pass at grade 4 or above at GCSE in English and maths, but disadvantaged pupils were less likely to meet the expected standard—only 59% of them did so, compared with non-disadvantaged pupils. That means that 35% of young people are routinely not getting a qualification in maths while they are school. That should be a concern to us all. We want every young person to fulfil their potential in maths.
Currently, those who do not achieve a grade 4 or above are expected to resit GCSE maths during their post-16 education. For some students, that means multiple resits of a subject that they have already found challenging for several years at school, and it traps them in a cycle of failure, just at the point where they should be discovering a love of learning and finding their vocation. The Education Committee has been looking at this policy as part of our inquiry on further education and skills, and asking whether that really is the best approach for all young people who do not achieve a grade 4 or above.
For some students who achieve grade 3, the extra work in a new environment that is different from school may help them to successfully resit their maths GCSE, but for others repeated, unsuccessful resits can be demoralising and counterproductive. We have yet to report, so I cannot draw conclusions on behalf of the whole Committee, but we have received quite compelling evidence that embedding practical maths content into the curriculum for the particular subjects needed for the student’s chosen course of study may be a better way to support students on vocational pathways to achieve the level of both English and maths that they will need to apply later on in life, rather than the endless cycle of GCSE maths resits.
Moving beyond GCSEs, it is good to see that maths is the most popular A-level subject, with more than 100,000 entries for A-level maths last year, as well more than 17,000 for further maths. But within those statistics, more work is needed to tackle the gender gap, because just 37% of last year’s maths A-levels were taken by young women, and a mere 27% of last year’s further maths A-levels.
Increasing the number of girls taking maths will help to tackle the gender gap in science, engineering and maths at university and beyond. Having positive role models, and improving understanding of just how many well-paid and rewarding careers are out there, for which maths can help, are definitely two important approaches, but we need to do more. There should be more practical support available in our schools to overcome that gender gap in maths.
Maths is an important component of many STEM degrees and myriad careers. To underpin a high-skill, high-wage economy, we need more young people with a good training in maths. I will end there, but I will just say that the Education Committee looks forward to scrutinising the curriculum and assessment review, and to scrutinising the Government’s recruitment of teachers, and we hope to see good progress in improving maths education and attainment for all pupils, across all our demographics, in every part of the country.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this debate. Like him, I have a deep affection for maths. In fact, I would probably go further and say that I am a maths nerd. And, like him, I believe that it still influences my thinking now, including here in Parliament. I love maths for its own sake. I was inspired as a child by watching shows such as Johnny Ball’s “Think of a Number”, I was only too happy to get a scientific calculator for my 11th birthday—I am not sure many 11-year-olds would be—and I went on to study maths at university, so I could not pass up the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Having said that I love maths for its own sake, though, I want to make the case that mathematics does not just contribute to our country in the headline-grabbing ways highlighted by my hon. Friend, such as AI innovation, although those are obviously very important. I believe that having a mathematically literate population can contribute to our society in myriad smaller ways, too, by ensuring that we can all think critically about what we are told, and make better decisions about our own lives.
There is a somewhat old-fashioned idea that, as long as people can work out their change when shopping, that is all the maths they need. It is true that basic numeracy is important, even in a world where we are more likely to wave our cards at a machine than to pay with cash, and where, contrary to teachers’ expectations in the 1980s, most of us do carry calculators around with us. From working out how long it is until the train or bus, or measuring whether that flat-pack furniture will fit in our living rooms before we buy it, to scaling up a cake recipe, there are plenty of ways in which basic arithmetic matters, but I think the importance of mathematics to every one of us goes way beyond that.
In a world where we are bombarded with information and misinformation daily, mathematics is vital to the critical thinking that stops us getting scammed and helps us to make truly informed decisions on matters such as healthcare and our personal finances. I will illustrate that with an example from a few years ago, when the BBC reported:
“Teenagers whose parents smoke are four times more likely to take it up themselves, experts have warned.”
There was an absolute bombardment of people saying that that was rubbish because their parents smoked and they did not, but let us look at the figures. What the article said was that
“4.9% of teenagers whose parents smoke have taken it up too. By contrast, only 1.2% of teenagers whose parents do not smoke begin to do so.”
It was absolutely right to say “four times more likely” but, even with parents who smoke, the vast majority—more than 95%—will not go on to smoke themselves. Those misunderstandings reoccur across many examples of scientific and medical stories in our mainstream press.
If we do not understand numbers, how can we make truly informed decisions about medical treatment? Do we really understand what a one-in-a-thousand risk of a side effect is? What does it mean if a contraceptive is 95% effective? What does it mean, in absolute numbers, for a treatment to carry a 10% increased risk of a type of cancer if the original risk was extremely low, and how does that compare with the risks of not having the treatment?
I think it became evident during the pandemic that people—including some at the highest levels of Government, apparently—did not understand the concept of exponential growth. We heard from Lord Vallance in the covid inquiry that the Prime Minister at the time had been “bamboozled” by graphs. He apparently wrote in his diary:
“Watching the PM get his head round stats is awful. He finds relative and absolute risk almost impossible to understand.”
Most of us will not have to lead the country through a pandemic, thank goodness, but we do need to make decisions about our own lives.
When it comes to school education, I can understand the sentiment of those who wanted to extend maths, but doing another two years of what has already not been working does not make any sense. I would rather see a focus on rebalancing the curriculum to 16, and ensuring that we have specialist maths teachers to deliver that and inspire our young people today.
I often speak on the subject of special educational needs, so before I finish, I will briefly say something about dyscalculia. Schools in England have a responsibility to identify and support students with special educational needs arising from specific learning difficulties, and that includes dyscalculia. But there is no requirement for teachers to learn about it; it is poorly understood and awareness is very low among both professionals and parents. Given that maths is so important to our lives and that dyscalculia is about having difficulty with understanding number-based information, I make a plea that it should be taken more seriously.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this debate and for the passionate speeches from across the Chamber, which highlighted that maths is not just an academic subject but a fundamental gateway to prosperity, opportunity, and innovation for individuals across the UK.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for science, innovation and technology, as the MP for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, I am proud to speak in this debate. I am someone who personally owes a lot to maths: I studied maths at A-level and went on to do a master’s in economic policy. At school, I was proudly somehow the school’s maths champion for two years in a row, but sadly did not quite make the cut for the maths Olympics—[Interruption.] I know.
Maths gave me much more than equations and graphs; it gave me the confidence to tackle problems, persevere through setbacks, and think logically under pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) beautifully explained how it is really about thinking and how it can help us to logically go through problems. Those skills have stayed with me, from working in the private sector to running my own business, and now in my role in Parliament. Maths has opened doors for me, and such opportunity should be a national priority.
For the Liberal Democrats, ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality maths education is essential for fairness and innovation and for securing our country’s future. It has been a real pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the importance of that and about upskilling our next generation. I particularly love how the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood talked about encouraging the love of maths and of learning, and about embedding maths into vocational subjects. It is important to look at the Finnish model, which asks how we can apply maths, because there are many ways to learn maths that are important to our everyday lives.
The Liberal Democrats also believe that every young person deserves the opportunity to develop strong maths skills regardless of their background. Maths skills are critical not just for economic growth, but for critical thinking, problem-solving skills and social mobility more broadly. We will champion proper funding for maths education and research as essential pillars of a forward-looking knowledge-based economy.
In my constituency, I see the best of the UK’s maths ecosystem at work. Alongside Rothamsted Research, our globally recognised research hub, are fast-growing local tech businesses. Our schools are working hard to ensure that maths is not just a subject learned in the classroom but a skill that inspires, empowers and prepares young people for life. My hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire talked about the importance of the tech sector, and how Cambridge is No. 1 for science and technology in terms of intensity, as well as the data science that comes out of that.
Coming back to the schools in my constituency, Tring Park school for the performing arts is a vocational school for future performers, but maths is celebrated there as a creative and intellectual pursuit. Pupils compete in math competitions—one may become a future maths champion—and are encouraged to see mathematics as a tool that complements their artistry, as has been mentioned. From subdividing music and choreographing patterns, to developing algorithms in digital art, students are not just taught to do maths; they are taught to be mathematicians.
At Roundwood Park school in Harpenden, maths is one of the most popular A-level subjects, with a thriving enrichment programme that includes university taster days, United Kingdom Mathematics Trust challenges and presentations linking maths to real-world issues such as AI, oncology and environmental economics. Its pupils go on to study maths, economics and engineering at competitive universities, and the curriculum explicitly links abstract thinking to practical application.
Alongside those successes, schools in my constituency tell me that they are struggling to recruit the teachers they need—an issue reflected across the country, as Members on both sides of the Chamber mentioned. For example, St John Lawes school in Harpenden, a high-performing comprehensive, has a fully staffed maths department today, but its headteacher warns that recruiting high-quality staff is becoming harder. To manage, it has invested in platforms such as Dr Frost Maths and Sparx to help to consolidate maths learning, but it knows that that is not a suitable alternative to great teachers. As the hon. Member for Harlow mentioned, there are fantastic maths teachers across Harpenden, so it is vital that we get recruitment right. Those new teachers are the maths teachers of tomorrow.
Nationally, the situation is much more concerning. Although maths remains the most popular A-level, undergraduate numbers are predicted to drop by 20% by 2035, with departments across the country at risk of closure, particularly at lower-tariff universities. Meanwhile, teacher recruitment in maths reached only 63% of its target in 2023-24, and schools nationwide are increasingly reliant on non-specialist teachers. That directly impacts students’ engagement and confidence, and is especially worrying for girls. Despite outperforming boys at GCSE, girls are far less likely to continue maths post 16. According to a 2024 survey from Teach First, more than half of girls lack confidence in maths, compared with 40% of boys. We are losing that diverse talent where we need it most. We urgently need to dismantle those barriers by promoting role models, tackling bias and ensuring that inspiring, qualified teachers are available to every student.
As the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology spokesperson for the Lib Dems, I see the fast-paced change in science and technology, and I believe it is vital that women play a leading role in that future. For many, that will start with maths and science, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood highlighted. That is why programmes such as the advanced mathematics support programme are so important, as they have boosted A-level and further maths participation rates, nearly doubling core maths qualifications since 2018. Recent cuts threaten their continued success, however, which is why we want to hear the Minister’s response on those schemes. We should expand them, not scale them back.
The funding shortfalls have broader implications for science and innovation. The UK’s domestic computing capacity has slipped from third to 10th globally, and the Government’s independent review warns that that undermines our global position in science and technology. The decision to shelve the £800 million exascale computer at the University of Edinburgh, crucial for breakthroughs in drug development and clean energy, highlights that worrying trend. I echo the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire about the implications of the real-term cuts to UKRI on the future of maths.
To lead in innovation, green technology and AI, Britain must invest in mathematical sciences. That is why the Liberal Democrats would champion proper funding for maths education and research as an essential pillar of a forward-looking, knowledge-based economy. In 2023 alone, mathematical sciences contributed £495 billion to the UK’s economy. I would love the Minister to outline the funding that is going into supporting maths education and research.
The Liberal Democrats would ensure that maths and STEM teaching reflects the skills children need, including statistics, coding and data science, taught through creativity and critical thinking. We would embed digital and data literacy across the curriculum. We believe in preparing students for a future shaped by AI and new technologies.
Maths is more than just numbers; it underpins critical thinking, innovation and our ability to solve global challenges. Our economic strength, national security and capability to tackle climate change, disease and technological breakthroughs all depend on robust mathematical sciences. Maths also helps to develop the future of each individual.
I wholeheartedly support this debate from my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. If we get this right, maths will not just be our national strength but secure our national future.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) on securing this important debate. We have had some fantastic speeches, and any debate in which Johnny Ball gets a shout-out is a good debate in my view.
Our profession, politics, is awash with mathematical metaphors. Lyndon Johnson famously said that the first rule of democracy is that you have to be able to count. In Westminster, the Treasury is always insisting on making the numbers add up. Lots of junior Ministers who interact with the Treasury and try to get money out of it discover that they get the square root of naff all from those discussions. Occasionally, when I listen to hon. Members who are less concise—they are not in this debate—trouting on in the main Chamber, I am reminded of the space-filling Hilbert curve, which is repetitious and capable of filling an infinite amount of space if left unchecked.
One of my greatest beliefs is in the non-linear nature of innovation. As hon. Members have already alluded to, mathematics is a brilliant example of that. It was never obvious, when the obscure philosophers who became logicians were faffing around with strange upside down a’s and backwards e’s, that they would lay the foundations for the computation that defines our world today.
I read in Quanta magazine that in the ’60s we discovered something that seemed perfectly useless: Penrose tiling—infinitely non-repeating patterns, which are very pretty and obviously totally useless, right? No: they are now used in quantum encryption. We have found a use for that seemingly useless thing.
The same is true of one of the UK’s greatest industrial successes: Arm, which does obscure-seeming work on reduced instruction set computing. What use is that? Why would anyone need a really tiny thing that does not use much power? But we all have mobile phones, and the intellectual property from that bit of Britain’s industrial policy is now in everyone’s pocket, all over the world. Mathematics is hugely important. I completely agree with all hon. Members who have said that.
I have been goaded by the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who said that I would talk about the last Government, and of course I will. It would be inappropriate not to add some numbers to a debate on maths, so what happened to mathematics under the last Government? Let us look at some international comparisons.
In the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—TIMSS—between 2011 and 2023, England went from 10th in the world to sixth in the world for maths, and from ninth to fifth for science. That is remarkable progress that puts us top in the western world. We are not quite at the level of the Asian people who dominate the table, but we are the best in the west.
I cannot tell hon. Members how Scotland and Wales are doing on that metric because their Governments chose to withdraw from those competitions as they did not like the scrutiny. However, I can give a comparison by stating where those devolved Governments are in the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the world for maths in PISA results, and from 11th to ninth for science. Whereas Wales —where a lot of the reforms that we had in England were avoided for ideological reasons—went from 29th to 27th for maths, and slumped from 21st to 29th for science.
That is part of a wider picture. I encourage everyone to read the brilliant report “Major challenges for education in Wales” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which points out that the average deprived child in England is now doing as well or better than the average child in Wales. The gap is so big, and the deprivation progress has been so great in England, that the deprived child in England is now in a better position than the average child in Wales. That is an incredible situation.
Looking at the improvement in school attainment by IDACI—income deprivation affecting children index—decile, we see improvement across the income distribution under the last Government, but the biggest improvement in England was in the bottom half of the income distribution. That is true for maths throughout the educational life cycle. Today, 90,000 more children at key stage 2—the end of junior school—meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths than in 2015-16.
That progress was driven by a number of measures, including our putting in 27,000 extra teachers over our time in government. Over the last Parliament, we increased real-terms per pupil funding by 11%. We brought in things such as maths schools and maths hubs, lots more low-stakes testing—my daughter is about to do the year 4 times tables test—and the key stage 2 tests. All those things, by the way, are still opposed by some people in the trade unions even though the evidence for the effectiveness of low-stakes testing, for example, is so strong. The National Education Union still opposes all forms of testing in primary school—a crazy position that we were right to reject in England.
There has been real progress as a result of those reforms. Although everything in England is far from perfect—there is loads of room for progress and lots of problems to fix—we can see what the alternative is. Where those reforms were not made for ideological reasons because the unions said no to academisation, school choice and school accountability, things got worse. The people who suffered from that ideology were not the rich and those who could afford to go private, but the poorest.
Some of the things being done now in schools are a mistake, such as hammering the budget for the advanced mathematics support programme. As has already been touched on in this debate, and as quite a lot of the people who care most about maths have pointed out, that is a big mistake. Jens Marklof, president of the London Mathematical Society, said that it will harm the chances of children from poorer areas. He said:
“There’s no AI without maths and if the government is really serious about its AI strategy they have to significantly scale up the support for maths education at all levels…The big success of AMSP was to enable kids who went to schools that didn’t offer further maths to give them this opportunity”.
Likewise, Adrian Smith, the Royal Society president, said it is
“spectacularly short-sighted to pull funding from programmes designed to support teachers and schools to deliver better maths provision.”
He also said:
“Our maths education is not up to scratch—too many young people are leaving school without the skills they need for life or the well-paid jobs that will drive economic growth”.
Dan Abramson, the chief executive of U-Maths, the umbrella organisation for university maths schools in England, and a professor of maths at King’s College London, said:
“For the UK to be at the forefront of AI and the data-driven modern economy, we need excellent mathematicians from all backgrounds, and we need more of them—that means more investment, not less”.
We set up the advanced mathematics support programme in 2018 to provide extra maths help to schools, and the Government have now cut it. I think that it is a mistake and I hope that they will look at it again. Unfortunately, that is part of a pattern. The Government have cut support not just for maths, but for physics, computing, Latin, cadets and behaviour hubs. A lot of the things that were doing a lot of good, including for maths, have been axed even though they are very small in the grand scheme of the Department for Education’s £100 billion budget. I hope that the Government will rethink those cuts.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire also wanted to talk about the higher education part of the piece. It is very striking that although 50% more people are now doing A-level maths—a great success—and the number of people doing double or triple science at GCSE has more or less doubled, which is great progress, that has not always translated into increases in the number of people doing maths at university. In fact, while there has been about a 20% increase in the total numbers entering HE courses at university since 2018-19, the number going into maths, while marginally up, is broadly flat.
Why is the improvement we are seeing in schools not leading to larger numbers doing maths at university? I am afraid that goes to the heart of the issues with our higher education system more broadly. I understand the logic of why tuition fees were brought in and I accept up to a point the idea of a market in higher education, but it seems to us that that market has gone too far. It is really a pseudo-market, because we rely entirely on young people aged 16 and 17 to drive the allocation of resources into our enormous higher education system.
The gradual move from teaching, or T, grants to a highly fees-based system gives Ministers far less control than they previously had. The Government’s decision last week to further reduce high-cost subject grants—T grants, as they used to be called—by a further 10% in real terms is a mistake in its own right because it hits the subjects such as engineering and science that we need for the future, and gives Ministers less control over what is going on in higher education.
The incentives set up by the pseudo-market in education have led to a great growth in courses that are cheap to provide but do not necessarily give great value to either the student or the taxpayer. We know from the leading work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, when we look at the combined perspective of the taxpayer and the student themselves, higher education is not worth it, at least from an economic point of view, for around 30% of those who go into it at the moment,.
Since the work that the IFS did, which is based on those who graduated during the mid-noughties, we have seen the graduate premium decline even further. The marginal students who we have been adding have even lower earnings, so those figures could easily be worse if we were to rerun that analysis now. That needs to be addressed.
There is absolutely sometimes a case for higher education to be simply beautiful—to do theology, art or whatever—and for it not to be of economic value, but we should be clear about when we choose to subsidise that. We should also be clear that things that are highly economically useful, such as mathematics and science, also have intrinsic value. They are also beautiful and there is an intrinsic value to studying them—that is not just the case for some of those things, particularly the creative arts, where we see the great concentration of those who end up with very low earnings and negative returns from an economic point of view.
We need to rethink. We need not just to patch up and mend the existing system, but to fundamentally rethink the incentives that it has set up. We should give ourselves the ability to make sure that we are investing in and driving up the growth of subjects such as mathematics, which are so critical to our future economy and security as a country. I will not go further into it than that, but the issues facing mathematics are, in a sense, part of the wider issues facing higher education. I hope that the Government will move from a patching up and mending attitude to a reformist and overhauling one.
The one thing I want discourage Ministers from doing is something that I am worried will come out of the Government’s curriculum and assessment review. Although I have lots of respect for Becky Francis, who is leading the review, one of the things that Ministers have been very keen to do is say that we need to have lots more time for arts subjects—for fun subjects such as music, drama and dance. That is fine in a sense, but Ministers have to be super clear about how they will find that time, and whether they are going to find it by funding some extra hours in the school day or something, because otherwise it inescapably means less time on other things. One of the good things that has happened, and one of the reasons standards have gone up, is that schools now spend about 13% more time teaching maths than they used to in 2010, so more time is going into this critical subject than was before. If we say that we want to have more time for something else, let us be honest about the trade-offs and what we are going to not do and let us also be honest about the consequences of that.
Chris Vince
This does not have to be a political point, but to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman just posed about where schools find the time: my argument is that maths does not need to be taught in a silo. Many subjects—even creative subjects such as art and music, and certainly design and technology—would include an aspect of maths. For many young people, being able to apply maths in those particular subjects would actually be really useful. Would the hon. Gentleman concede that point at least?
Neil O'Brien
I am happy to agree that we can bring maths into many other things, and that is also a fun way of teaching maths. In return, I put back to the hon. Gentleman that there are limits to that. If we want to have more time for something else, we have to say where it is coming from. The improvement in those international league table rankings that I mentioned has not come about as a result of some sort of magic. It has come about by us spending more time on that, putting more resources into it and making it a priority. Unfortunately, not everything can be a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is. The last Government chose to prioritise maths and STEM. I think it was the right decision. One can argue that we should go for a different course, but if we are going to do that, people should be explicit about it and honest about what they are actually going to do.
Let me not turn into the thing that I have already criticised—the space-filling Hilbert curve—and take up endless time in this debate. It has been a hugely important debate with brilliant speeches from lots of Members from across the House. I hope that the Ministers will act on some of the brilliant suggestions that have been made, and that we can further improve math education in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the many hon. Members for participating in this debate on an important subject. I am sure that you would agree with me, Mr Vickers, that their enthusiasm and passion means we can rest assured that this all adds up and that there is a level of agreement.
I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) for securing this important debate and for his optimistic thoughts on mathematics and its being a significant part of our present and future society, especially for our young people, teachers and institutions, as well as economically.
I want to acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said about maths being a beautiful thing—it is indeed. I enjoyed maths when I was at school and I still do it with my children, helping them through their own education; it is with us everywhere.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her contribution and wish her daughter every success with her results. I agree that we need to celebrate, encourage and have a love for learning maths.
I will of course attempt to respond to the many areas of the subject that Members have mentioned so far. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for speaking so eloquently about the significance of number-based information and how relevant that is for our life in general and for life skills. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on being a maths champion and on the many points that she raised. I thank all those involved in maths and the teachers in our schools, colleges and universities for doing such an excellent job in teaching our children, our young people and adults about this most important subject.
I do not perceive the debate as contentious. Nobody here today would say that maths is not important, because it absolutely is. We all agree on that. I loved maths when I was at school. It was one of my favourite subjects and it remains so. But why is it so important? It has a critical role to play in the future of the UK economy. Higher levels of achievement are usually associated with higher earnings and productivity, which are a key determining factor of economic growth. There is a strong demand for mathematical skills in the labour market. Such skills can increase individual productivity, earnings and employment opportunities and are important in everyday life and activities.
Many careers require maths skills, which change over time. I think it is safe to say that for most of us in this Chamber, the need for maths when we were starting out was different to the needs for maths today. We only need to mention the words artificial intelligence—it has already been mentioned—to recognise that. Excellence in maths is one of the many skills needed to drive growth in the AI industry, and we want to ensure that all children and young people have the foundational maths knowledge and equal opportunities to progress in their careers. Advanced mathematics underpins the development of cutting edge AI, which the Prime Minister has set out as a key driver in the plan for change, helping to turbocharge growth and boost living standards.
In schools, all key stages play an essential part in maths knowledge. Under the current curriculum, in key stage 1 pupils are taught a basic underpinning of mathematics, ensuring they develop confidence and mental fluency with whole numbers, counting and place value. The principal focus of mathematics teaching in key stage 2 is to ensure that pupils become increasingly fluent with whole numbers and the four operations, including number facts. The percentage of pupils meeting the key stage 2 expected standards in maths in the 2023-24 academic year was 73%.
The programme of study for key stage 3 is organised into apparently distinct domains, but pupils should build on key stage 2 and connections across mathematical ideas to develop fluency, mathematical reasoning and competency in solving increasingly sophisticated problems. The mathematical content set out in the key stage 3 and key stage 4 programmes of study covers a full range of material contained in the GCSE mathematics qualifications. In 2024, 72% of pupils achieved a GCSE grade 9 to 4 in mathematics by the end of key stage 4. I should point out that that is based on the current national curriculum, but there is an ongoing independent curriculum assessment review, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. I welcome the Education Committee’s keen interest in this topic, and I am sure there are many other views as well.
Maths does not stop when someone leaves school. The study of maths post-16 is important to ensure the future workforce is skilled, competitive and productive. Skills developed while studying maths help adults with everyday life. There is an expectation that students will continue to study maths if they need to and, of course, if they choose to. From what I have heard from Members in this room, I am sure we all encourage those students who have an aptitude for maths to continue at A-level and Higher maths.
It is good to know that last year almost 100,000 students took A-level maths, and there was a 20% increase in students of A-level further maths. A-level maths remains the most popular A-level subject, as it has been since 2014. But there will also be those young people who did not get the grades they needed at school. Any young person who has not yet attained GCSE grade 4 in maths must continue to study maths under the maths and English condition of funding.
We support young people who are aged 16 to18 at the start of their apprenticeships to continue to develop vital maths and English skills during their apprenticeships, either through GCSE or functional skills qualifications. Gaining level 2 skills in these areas is important, giving young people the opportunity to progress in life, in learning and in work.
We do not stop with young people either. There are many adults who missed out earlier in life for whatever reason and need the right maths skills or qualifications to get on. Unfortunately, the numbers do not make good reading. Some 8.5 million adults have low maths or English skills, or both. That is why we fund adults aged 19 and above to study maths for free through our essential skills legal entitlements. This allows adults without level 2 maths skills to study high-quality qualifications such as GCSEs and functional skills qualifications and to gain the skills they need to succeed in life.
In 2023-24, we funded more than 100,000 adults to study maths through the legal entitlement. However, the number of adults studying maths has declined in recent years, so it is important to turn that around. Adults undertaking apprenticeships continue to benefit from the job-specific maths and English skills they need to do the job.
Although A-level maths is the single most popular A-level, we are not taking that for granted in our plan for change. We are investing £8.2 million to improve participation in and the teaching of advanced maths. The funding for the advanced maths support programme will support teacher career progression development and student enrichment, with a focus on girls and students from disadvantaged backgrounds, breaking down the barriers to success, so that all young people have the chance to progress to STEM and AI careers in the future.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire spoke about long-term investment in mathematics and mathematical science. I would like to talk briefly about the importance of undergraduate-level maths and the significant growth in demand for jobs requiring undergraduate maths skills. We fully recognise the critical importance of sustaining a strong pipeline of mathematics graduates to meet the evolving need of the economy, research and innovation sectors. Maths underpins a wide range of disciplines and industries. Ensuring a steady flow of skilled graduates is essential to maintaining the UK’s global competitiveness, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien).
It is encouraging to see that in 2023-24, 9,105 undergraduates qualified in maths, which is up 2.2% from the previous year, despite that figure being lower than in earlier years. It is also good to note that in 2024 there were more than 55,000 applications to main scheme full-time undergraduate courses in mathematics, an increase of 5.5% from 2023 and 10% from 2019.
Internationally, England has performed well in recent studies. However, there is still work to do and there is a significant difference in performance between different pupil groups, including a gap associated with disadvantage. In 2022, pupils in England achieved a mean PISA mathematics score of 492, which is significantly higher than the OECD average of 472. In 2023, pupils in England performed on average significantly above the TIMSS centre point in mathematics and science in both year 5 and year 9. They also performed significantly above the 2023 international mean in both subjects and in both year groups.
Many Members have talked today about teaching, teaching recruitment and our focus on that area. I will just reassure Members that we remain extremely focused on recruiting teachers, including maths teachers. We have a series of bursaries and scholarships, and we are also focusing on how we retain teachers. We will continue to focus on that, because we recognise that we need to meet that target of 6,500 teachers. I also reassure Members that we have had an increase in the number of teachers of maths at secondary schools and in SEND.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for securing the debate and for speaking about the importance of maths. I am also grateful to all the other Members who participated in the debate for the significant points that they made. Everyone has made very valuable points about the importance of maths, so I hope that Members are happy that the Government share their views and the concerns they have raised. It is always good to find common ground and consensus across the House on important matters. The steps we have taken underline the importance of maths to individuals, to employers and indeed to the country.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for the Government’s response to this debate and I also thank all the Members who contributed.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) rightly pulled me up on engineering, which I will squeeze into the mathematical sciences, and I apologise. He also shared his love of teaching maths. It was so wonderful to hear his excitement, for example, about communicating the idea of the golden ratio, the beauty of which is everywhere to be seen.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) touched on an aspect of financial education that I did not get to, although I would have liked to. She also spoke about those who do not achieve grade 4 and have to go through endless rounds of resits. I could not agree more that getting the teaching of mathematics skills into vocational training will be a much better way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) spoke eloquently about how we are bombarded with information in the modern world. Understanding numbers is critical for decision making and understanding the world around us. She also touched on dyscalculia, which requires specialist understanding in schools. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s plans for SEND in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) responded for the Lib Dems today. I, too, congratulate her on being a maths champion. I was not—I never achieved that particular accolade—but I hope that we are all maths champions today.
The spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), shared possibly the most obscure mathematics joke that the House has ever heard. However, his description of Hilbert space was totally apt.
I will wrap up my comments now, so as not to go on infinitely. We have had a really good debate today. It reflects the importance of mathematics to the UK, and long may that contribution continue. I am reassured by some of what the Minister said, but we will continue to scrutinise the Government’s plans as we see them being put into action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of maths to the UK.
Prime Minister
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It has been over two decades since a Labour Government banned the cruel practice of fur farming, but the job is not done. Real fur and fur products are still being imported into the UK. This week, I delivered a petition to No. 10 with over 1 million signatures calling for a fur-free Britain. My private Member’s Bill would deliver exactly that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to close the loopholes, ban the import and sale of real fur, and finally put the fur trade out of fashion?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard her representations. We have commissioned the expert Animal Welfare Committee to produce a full report on the responsible sourcing of fur to inform the next steps that need to be taken, and we are committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this week.
[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 304.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister:
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard her representations. We have commissioned the expert Animal Welfare Committee to produce a full report on the responsible sourcing of fur to inform the next steps that need to be taken, and we are committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year.
School Food
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government are today taking another step to delivering our plan for change as we announce that all children in households in receipt of universal credit will be eligible for free school meals from September 2026. This unprecedented step will put £500 back into families’ pockets and lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty, to break down barriers to opportunity and tackle the scar of child poverty across our country.
Giving children access to a nutritious meal during the school day also leads to higher attainment, improved behaviour and better outcomes—meaning they get the best possible education and chance to succeed in work and life.
This new entitlement will apply for children in all settings where free school meals are provided, including schools, school-based nurseries and further education settings. We expect the majority of schools will allow parents to apply before the start of the school year September 2026, by providing their national insurance number to check their eligibility.
Since 2018, children have only been eligible for free school meals if their household income is less than £7,400 per year, meaning hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty have been unable to access free school meals.
The Government’s historic new expansion to those in receipt of universal credit will change this and comes ahead of the child poverty taskforce publishing its 10-year strategy to drive sustainable change later this year.
Families struggling with the cost of living are also benefiting from the significant steps the Government are taking to raise the national minimum wage, uprate benefits and support 700,000 families through the fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions.
To ensure quality and nutrition in meals for the future, the Government are also acting quickly with experts across the sector to revise the school food standards, so every school is supported with the latest nutrition guidance.
The Government are also offering more than £13 million in funding to 12 food charities across England to redistribute thousands of tonnes of fresh produce directly from farms to fight food poverty in communities.
The tackling food surplus at the farm gate scheme is helping farms and organisations to work collaboratively to ensure edible food that might have been left in fields instead ends up on the plates of those who need it, including schoolchildren. Schools and local authorities will continue to receive pupil premium and home-to- school transport extended rights funding based on the existing free school meals threshold.
This is the latest step in the Government’s plan for change to break the unfair link between background and opportunity, including rolling out free breakfast clubs to every primary school, expanding Government-funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents and legislating to cap the number of branded school uniform items.
From April 2026 until the end of Parliament, millions of households are set to receive a permanent yearly above inflation boost to universal credit. The increase, a key element of the Government’s welfare reforms to be laid before Parliament, will tackle the destitution caused by years of inaction that has left the value of the standard allowance at a 40-year low by the early 2020s.
[HCWS682]
NHS Supply Chains: Eradicating Modern Slavery
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Modern slavery includes forced labour, human trafficking and exploitative labour conditions and it remains a significant global rights violation, with an estimated 50 million individuals affected worldwide. The UK Government are committed to eradicating the presence of this heinous crime in its supply chains, including those within the health sector.
The NHS is one of the UK’s largest procurers of goods and services, and as such has a significant role to play in combating modern slavery. The Government, supported by NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, will send a clear signal that there is no place for goods and services linked to modern slavery in our healthcare system. I am pleased to announce that we are taking decisive action to eliminate modern slavery in NHS supply chains in England by proceeding to introduce robust regulations.
In my statement published on 21 November 2024, I confirmed DHSC’s pledge to create regulations to eradicate from the NHS goods and services tainted by slavery and human trafficking, as required by the National Health Service Act 2006. The Department has worked hard to ensure that regulations are fit for purpose and interact with the current legislation and updated policies.
The review of modern slavery risk in NHS supply chains published on 14 December 2023 found that 21% of suppliers are at high risk of slavery and human trafficking. The review recognised the need to improve and standardise the approach to modern slavery risk management. It recommended that DHSC proceed to introduce regulations to enforce and enable a consistent approach to risk management across the NHS.
Modern slavery is a complex issue that cannot be tackled through a singular legislative measure. There are existing measures in place to tackle modern slavery both in terms of criminalising it and addressing it through commercial levers. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides a legal framework for punishing those committing modern slavery offences. These provisions do not regulate public bodies or provide a framework for public bodies to address modern slavery in their supply chains. The Procurement Act 2023 provides a single framework for the rules and procedures that public procurement bodies must follow. It includes grounds for the mandatory or discretionary exclusion of suppliers from a tender process where modern slavery offences have been committed. Procurement of healthcare services for the NHS in England—approximately £60 billion—are not in scope of the Procurement Act 2023. They are covered by the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023, which give NHS decision-makers flexibility to arrange services in the best interests of patients, the taxpayer and the population. We aim to introduce a single, enforceable approach to modern slavery that sets a standardised risk management approach across the NHS, covering all the supply chains for goods and services provided to the NHS.
These regulations will require all public bodies to assess modern slavery risks in their supply chains when procuring goods and services for our health service in England. We are then asking public bodies to take reasonable steps to address and, where possible, eliminate the modern slavery risks when designing procurement procedures, when awarding and managing contracts, and when setting up frameworks or dynamic markets.
Reasonable steps may include: ensuring robust conditions of participation and assessment criteria are built into procurement processes; using specific contract terms to monitor and require mitigation where instances of modern slavery are discovered; and monitoring suppliers’ compliance and reassessing risk throughout the life of the contract.
We invited views and contributions from a wide range of stakeholders through extensive engagement and public consultation. We sought and considered input from public bodies, suppliers, trade associations, interest groups and the public. This has been a valuable step in the development of our regulations, which we intend to lay before Parliament soon.
The public consultation ran from 21 November 2024 to 13 February 2025. We are pleased to announce that the Government’s response to feedback received has now been published.
This is a step towards strengthening the Department’s leadership role in championing ethical procurement, setting a benchmark for other sectors beyond health. Modern slavery is an abhorrent crime that exists everywhere, not just the UK or within supply chains of the health sector. It demands a collective international response. DHSC has a duty to eradicate the use of goods and services tainted by modern slavery in NHS supply chains. We have a continued commitment to work across Government and sectors to ensure our efforts align with these priorities and uphold the responsibilities of public bodies within our jurisdiction.
[HCWS683]
Remote Attendance and Proxy Voting
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Today we have published the Government’s response to our recent consultation on remote attendance and proxy voting in local authorities. The Government have previously set out our intention to reset the relationship between central and local government, and to establish a partnership that delivers better outcomes for the communities we represent. Key to this partnership is providing the sector with support and tools to modernise democratic engagement and make elected roles more accessible for more people.
In-person debate, discussion and the opportunity for residents to engage with their representatives are core aspects of local democracy. At the same time, we know that it is not always possible for elected members to attend local authority meetings in person. The Government response sets out our intention to permit local authorities to meet remotely, and to require them to develop their own remote attendance policies if they do. Local authorities vary in size, location, responsibility and make-up, and we want to ensure that they can develop appropriately responsive policies.
On proxy voting, we plan to require all principal—unitary, upper and second-tier—councils in England to implement proxy voting schemes to provide consistency for members who are absent when they become a new parent, or for serious or long-term illness. We plan for this requirement to apply to meetings of full council. For all other meetings, proxy voting may be used but will not be required, and substitute or pairing schemes may be more appropriate. We plan for other local authorities not listed above to be enabled, but not required, to implement proxy voting schemes for any of their meetings, in the context of member absences for serious or long-term illness or becoming a new parent.
We are keen to reflect feedback from the current make-up of councils, and the demands and requirements we have heard in that process, and to lead the way in opening up elected office for a broader range of candidates, including those of working age, those with caring responsibilities, and those with disabilities or other personal circumstances who would benefit from modernised democratic practices.
We plan to collaboratively develop guidance with the sector on both policies to ensure that they are supportive of members and officers.
We believe that these reforms will improve the experience of elected members serving their communities and encourage more people to consider locally-elected office.
[HCWS684]
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the order before us seeks to add ninja swords to the list of prohibited offensive weapons by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to include them. I will briefly set out the context for why the Government have brought the order forward. The Government have already taken robust action to introduce a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, which came into force last September. We are also strengthening enforcement and prevention as part of the Government’s safer streets mission, and there will be further new measures before the House of Lords very shortly in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently going through the House of Commons.
This legislation to ban ninja swords was a government manifesto commitment last July and responds to tireless campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed by a ninja sword in 2022. We are taking this action in honour of Ronan’s memory, but also in recognition of the remarkable courage and determination shown by his loved ones, led by his mother, Pooja Kanda, alongside her daughter, Nikita Kanda, and other family members. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their family. I cannot imagine what it is like to suffer such a terrible loss, yet, having suffered that loss, they have gone on to campaign for changes that will make our society safer. For that, they have my admiration and respect and, I hope, that of the whole Committee.
Although there have been relatively few fatal attacks involving ninja swords compared with other bladed weapons, there is no doubt that such swords can be lethal. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose, or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. Using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of that Act, the Government now add ninja swords, through this order, to the list of prohibited offensive weapons to which Section 141 applies.
These weapons—ninja swords—are defined as a sword with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. The length the Government have chosen is in order to exclude knives and tools used for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knife. To be within the scope of the ban, the article will also have the features specified in paragraph 1A, namely that the sword will have a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge and a blunt spine with either a tanto-style point or a reverse tanto-style point. These terms are further defined in detail in the legislation.
Although it is right that we take the strongest possible action to prevent violence and stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. We are confident that the definition of ninja swords does not include tools traditionally used in agriculture or other farming, gardening or outdoor activities. We have included in the legislation defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is one of historical importance; is owned for a permitted activity, such as sports or legitimate martial arts practice; or is made by hand. Antiques are already exempted from the scope of Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so the order before the Committee is very specific and tightly defined.
I have a couple of further points to make. Parts 3 and 4 of the order provide for a surrender and compensation scheme, through which owners of the weapons in scope of the order will be able to surrender them. The order has a territorial scope of England and Wales only, but I very much hope that the local devolved Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that ninja swords are prohibited across the United Kingdom. To that effect, Home Office officials are in discussion with the Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but, obviously, that is a matter for them.
To conclude, the risk of these dangerous swords being used for crime and violence is not one that we are prepared to tolerate. The manifesto commitment, endorsed last year in the July general election, commits the Government to halving knife crime in a decade as part of our wider safer streets mission. Banning ninja swords is an important step towards this and towards removing weapons from circulation. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we believe that this ban is proportionate and we support it. Sword-related deaths are rare but even one, such as the tragic loss of Ronan Kanda, is too many. I join the Minister in his admiration for the family and how they have behaved. However, for this ban to be truly effective, it must be robust and well implemented. I have a number of concerns; I would be grateful if the Minister could address them when he winds up.
First, if the people we most need to reach are not even aware of this ban or the surrender scheme, they are unlikely to have the desired impact. The Youth Endowment Fund says that this was a key failing of the previous scheme to ban zombie knives. Even some individuals working in this field were apparently unaware of the process. Clear and targeted communication is essential. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that those who are the hardest to reach, who may not be easily identified or contacted, are made aware of these changes?
Secondly, I have a real concern that people surrendering zombie knives were asked to provide their personal details. Youth workers believe that this prevented many people coming forward, in particular those possessing weapons illegally, who already distrust the police completely. Will people be asked to provide their personal details this time?
Can the Minister clarify why the ban is limited to blades of up to 24 inches? Although most ninja swords are between 14 and 24 inches, knife enthusiasts are already bragging online that blades longer than 24 inches will remain legal. Was this intended to protect legitimate uses? From what the Minister said in his introduction, I assume that it was. If so, does the legitimate use exemption not already provide adequate protection? Is the Minister confident that criminals will not simply switch to longer blades to evade the law, which they seem to suggest online they would or should do?
I also want to ask about the exemption for fantasy swords. After the zombie knife ban, the BBC found that retailers were still selling them by claiming that they were for cosplay and could not cause harm unless modified. Is the Minister confident that this exemption will not create a similar loophole?
Furthermore, the legislation is narrowly drawn. The Home Office itself acknowledges that it may simply shift demand to other types of swords. It is unclear whether most swords used in recent homicides would even be covered by these new rules. What mechanism will be in place to review the effectiveness of this ban after it comes into force?
Finally, this law will make a difference only if it is enforced. The Clayman review suggests that the police currently lack the training, expertise and resources to police this effectively. Can the Minister provide information on how enforcement will be strengthened and what steps are being taken to improve police capability?
I would be grateful if the Minister would address these issues when he winds up.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I join the Minister’s expressions of gratefulness towards the family of Ronan Kanda for the way that they have taken forward this campaign. I also thank the Minister and his Home Office team for the really careful way that the order has been drafted. They have considered thoroughly the representations made by members of the antique trade, collectors, historical re-enactment groups and martial art practitioners, when the easiest thing would have been to have a blanket ban on every straight-bladed sword. This would have criminalised people involved in land management, antique collecting, living history and sporting activities. I am therefore very grateful for the care and trouble that the Home Office team have taken.
I am confident that this definition is precise and specific to just these swords, but it is complex in nature and needs to be accompanied by illustrated guidance notes, as was done with zombie knives. A great deal of very well-informed amateur effort is available to help the Home Office compile these notes. Perhaps, given the enthusiasm in some bits of this Government for AI and the progress that they are making, we could equip each constable with an app on their phone that, based on the detailed knowledge that can be provided, the illustrations and other details, would enable instant identification—at least in principle—for police officers, who would not have to receive deep, separate training. Maybe there is something that we can do here to improve enforcement. There is so much complexity in this area that the idea that we are going to train constables in how to recognise whether a knife is within or without this legislation is not practical, but there are ways in which it can be done.
I am delighted that the Government have recognised the importance of historical items by including defences that are identically worded to those in previous legislation. The role of amateur collectors and people who are interested in preserving our history is really important at a time when museums are strapped for cash and resources. That being recognised and supported is enormously appreciated.
I hope that we will—well, I am sure that we will—have an opportunity when the Crime and Policing Bill comes through the House to consider extending this defence consistently across the entire area of historical weapons. There is a set of inconsistencies at the moment, particularly around World War II items, such as the sort of stuff that the SOE used—I declare an interest as someone who is descended from the political head of the SOE. It is really important that this aspect of our history is preserved. There will be an opportunity with that Bill—not, as I say, to extend the idea of the legislation but to extend its ambit—to make sure that what has been done in this order can be extended to weapons of historical significance generally.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making it clear that we support the order before the Committee. The use of offensive weapons, such as so-called ninja swords, in violent crime is a matter of profound concern, and we recognise the devastating circumstances that led to this legislative action. The tragic death of Ronan Kanda was a heartbreak that no family should have to experience. We pay tribute to his family’s dignified and determined campaign, and acknowledge the Government’s response in bringing forward this measure.
As the Minister outlined, the order makes it an offence to manufacture, sell, import or possess ninja swords, a specific category of bladed weapon characterised by their tanto-style points and multiple cutting edges. It also introduces a surrender and compensation scheme modelled on the previous amnesty for zombie knives and machetes. These are measured and proportionate steps, and we recognise the effort that has gone into ensuring that this is a targeted and carefully drafted order.
However, we must consider what else is necessary and required beyond this intervention if we are serious about tackling the wider and more complex challenge of knife crime. We must be clear about what the order can and cannot achieve. Banning a specific category of weapon, although entirely sensible, will not address the root cause of knife crime. Tragically, those intent on violence will find other means. We must not fall into the trap of believing that legislation alone—in particular, legislation focused on the design or appearance of a blade—can resolve a problem that is systemic and growing in scale.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments and broad support for the order. I will deal with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, first before I take the comments from both the opposition Front Benches. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the exemptions. As he said, the Government have worked hard to ensure that we target knives and materials that are used for criminal and dangerous purposes and not for business purposes, as historical artefacts or, indeed, for historical antique purposes. I welcome his comments on that.
The noble Lord will know that Ministers considered illustrated guidance on the type of knife that would be covered by the order. That will be a publicly available. He made an interesting point about how we give that to police officers in a form that is understandable by them. He mentioned the interesting concept of putting things on an app. We can always reflect on those things, but it is important that police officers know exactly what is in place and exactly what type of knife is covered by the order. I will take away his comments and examine them in detail.
I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the order. She asked a number of key questions. She asked how we deal with those who are hardest to reach. We have published guidance and made a public announcement in May that we are doing this. A number of bins will be placed in key locations across the United Kingdom for surrender of knives during the amnesty period, between 1 July and 1 August. We have also commissioned a mobile surrender van to go around certain key areas where we believe there has been a high prevalence of knife crime. However, she is right that we need to raise public awareness. It is already an offence to carry a knife in public, but there might be people who do not realise that and will not want to fall foul of the law.
The noble Baroness asked whether people surrendering knives would have to supply personal details. I assure her that nobody has to supply personal details if they surrender a knife. If they wish to have compensation for the knife that they are surrender then, self-evidently, we will need an address and bank details to process the compensation accordingly. If an individual wishes to turn up at a police station during the amnesty period and deposit the knife then they do not have to give their details should they not wish to, but, self-evidently, they do for compensation.
The definition of the knife that we have settled on—14 to 24 inches—is because that type of knife is most commonly used. There are larger knives, but crime with longer swords is extremely rare, and we have again tried to be proportionate in the legislation. We have determined that up to 24 inches is important, and the description of ninja swords in the legislation strikes the right balance between banning the type of ninja swords we have seen on the streets while protecting the interests that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned in his contribution.
The noble Baroness mentioned retailers trying to circumvent the law by describing their knife in a different way. Once the order comes into effect and ninja swords are banned, selling them will be an offence. We are providing defences for sale of those items, such as historical significance, being antiques, agricultural use or business use—even, dare I say it, use for theatrical performances and the production of films and television programmes—but there is a clear defence. We believe that the order provides details of the offence if an individual sells a ninja knife and tries to pass it off as something else, or defines it as not a ninja knife. It will then be up to the police to arrest and the CPS to determine whether to prosecute, for prosecutions to go forward, and for the courts to determine whether that defence was appropriate. I go back to the basic first principle: once ninja swords are banned, selling them will be an offence. I hope that reassures her.
The noble Baroness mentioned whether banning this type of weapon would transfer activity to other types of weapons. These are stark and terrible figures, but it may help to say that between April 2023 and April 2024, 262 people were killed as a result of the type of activity that we have been talking about. Kitchen knives were the bladed item that caused the highest number of homicides, with 109 people dying as a result of them. Only four people were killed with zombie knives in that year; 18 were killed with machetes, six with flick-knives, five with hunting knives, 48 with other knives, four with other sharp instruments, one with an axe, and 13 with Rambo-style military knives. A range of knives are already used. I will come on to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made in a moment, but we are trying to put some energy into the zombie knife ban following the very important campaign by Ronan’s family. Obviously, kitchen knives are domestic knives that are used for domestic purposes, and that is very difficult to address accordingly.
The other point that the noble Baroness made was around police training, expertise and resources. It is already an offence to carry a knife in public, and the police can enforce the legislation in this area. The order makes it an offence to possess a ninja sword in private. The police are not going to go knocking on every door in the United Kingdom saying, “Have you got a ninja sword?”, but if there is a police intervention into a property about another matter then possession of a ninja sword in that property might well be an example of where that offence is taken forward. It might well be that the police enter the property of an individual whom they believe might have been seen on a street carrying a sword, and then find the sword. However, this is about possession of a ninja sword in private, predominantly, because carrying that weapon in public is already an offence. I hope that helps the noble Baroness.
I welcome the support for the order by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He is absolutely right that it is proportionate and reasonable. He is also right that we need to look at the wider issue of knife crime as a whole in the community at large. He asked about the resources we have put in. Neighbourhood policing is a great investment by this Labour Government, who will put an extra £1 billion into policing as a whole this year. We anticipate increasing the number of neighbourhood police to 3,000 this year and, we hope, to 12,000 to 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. Neighbourhood police are, basically, community-based police officers who will be able to pick up intelligence, know their community, work closely with other individuals and, I hope, look at where there are pressures on knife crime to find collective solutions with other agencies, including youth support.
The Government are investing in youth hubs, which are one of our manifesto commitments. We have set up a coalition to tackle knife crime, on which we will work with a number of experts in this area, including youth organisations. In particular, the Young Futures programme is a key part of our mission to keep our streets safe. The noble Lord raises important issues. The Government have emerging and current plans to put additional investment into youth work. In particular, the knife-enabled robbery task force that we established will look at some of the root causes of knife crime. Ultimately, we have to tackle the long-term culture of younger people, in particular, carrying knives as a matter of course. Death sometimes arises through people carrying knives as a mechanism of defence, when all it ends up doing is causing attacks against themselves.
I hope, with those comments, that the Committee will be able to approve the order. It is a useful addition to the potential activities that government and police forces can undertake to prevent knife crime, and I commend it to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Committee for allowing us to debate the four regulations relating to the foreign influence registration scheme as a single unit, but if noble Lords wish to discuss individual matters relating to them then we can do so. I know that, before I came to this House, noble Lords were instrumental in scrutinising and improving the foreign influence registration scheme during the passage of the National Security Act, and I am grateful for their consideration to date. There are four instruments to cover; I hope I can speak to them for possibly a little bit longer than I might normally have done just to outline where we are.
Noble Lords will know that, on 1 April, the Government announced the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS, as I will call it—which I can confirm will go live on 1 July 2025. The Government also announced recently that Russia would join Iran on the enhanced tier of the scheme. FIRS, as set out in Part 4 of the National Security Act 2023, will serve as a critical tool in our efforts to deter and disrupt hostile state activity. It will also enhance transparency around the influence exerted by foreign powers in our democratic process.
As noble Lords will know, the scheme is underpinned by three principal objectives. The first is transparency. The scheme will require individuals who undertake certain activities on behalf of foreign powers to declare them. Where such activities constitute political influence, the relevant details will be published on a public register, ensuring openness and accountability.
The second objective is deterrence. The scheme requires those engaged in malign activities for foreign powers either to cease such contact or to register it formally with the Government.
The final objective is disruption. Failure to disclose relevant associations with foreign powers is an offence. This will be enforced by law enforcement, which can take decisive action against those who seek to conceal foreign state involvement. I hope that that broad principle is welcomed by the Committee; I know that it is.
I turn to the four instruments before us. First, on Russia and Iran, the first two sets of regulations specify the entirety of the Iranian and Russian states on the enhanced tier of the scheme. This means, for Iran, the Supreme Leader; the whole of the Government, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran; and the judiciary of Iran. For Russia, this includes the President of Russia; Cabinet Ministers; government ministries; regional Governments; the judiciary; and the legislature.
As my colleague, Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, set out in a Statement to the House of Commons:
“The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, and media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression. It is also no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of the Iranian intelligence services targeting Jewish and Israeli people internationally”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 195.]
As noble Lords will know, Russia poses an acute threat to UK security. In recent years, its hostile acts have included the deadly nerve agent attack that we witnessed in Salisbury, espionage, arson, and cyberattacks, including the targeting of UK parliamentarians through spear phishing campaigns.
Specifying Russia and Iran on the enhanced tier will mean that anyone acting at their direction in the United Kingdom will face a choice: either they declare their activities to the UK Government or they risk five years’ imprisonment. That choice is down to them from the beginning of the scheme on 1 July. Both sets of regulations include a statutory five-year review period and a grace period for those who are in ongoing arrangements at the point of the scheme coming into force in order to allow them to register arrangements without there being a need to impact on legitimate activities.
We have also set a number of exemptions in the scheme. This set of regulations introduces four new exemptions to the scheme. These exemptions, which sit alongside those already set out in primary legislation, are designed to uphold the principle of proportionality. They reduce the burden of registering routine or already transparent activities while ensuring that the scheme remains focused on addressing genuine risks. For example, these regulations include an exemption from the political influence tier of the scheme for a foreign power investment fund; this is intended to cover sovereign wealth funds and certain public pension funds.
Then there are three exemptions from the enhanced tier. First, there is an exemption for funded study arrangements, such as scholarships awarded by foreign Governments. Secondly, there is an exemption for activities related to government administrative and technical services, such as those concerning nationality, immigration and tax-related services. Thirdly, there is an exemption for public bodies and arrangements to which they are party.
Each of these exemptions has been carefully and narrowly defined to prevent the creation of loopholes that could be exploited for malign purposes. For example, a student from Russia or Iran on a government-funded scholarship would be exempt only in relation to activities directly connected to their course of study. Any other activity undertaken on behalf of those states would still require registration.
The final set of regulations concerns the operation of the public register, and I will talk a little now about publication. In my view, that is central to delivering the scheme’s transparency objectives. The regulations set out the categories of information that will be published on the register. They are carefully limited to what is necessary to fulfil the scheme’s transparency aims, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for individual privacy. By default, registrations relating to political influence activities will appear on the public register. Where activities extend beyond political influence, they are registered on the enhanced tier and will not be published. It is important to emphasise that individuals and organisations that register under the scheme, and whose details appear on the public register, are acting responsibly and in support of transparency.
The regulations also set out the information that may not appear on the register where it has been demonstrated that publication would be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, or to the prevention of crime, a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings; where it would put an individual’s safety at risk; or where it could result in the disclosure of commercially sensitive information.
Lastly, the regulations also provide for information to remain on the public register for a period of 10 years following the conclusion of the relevant activity. This retention period is particularly important for identifying long-term trends and patterns in foreign influence.
There is legitimate activity, of course, and I want to be clear that the scheme does not seek to deter that legitimate activity. Registering with the scheme does not mean that an individual is doing anything wrong, nor that they must cease their activities. We are also taking steps to ensure that registration remains as straightforward and simple as possible, and that those affected by the scheme are aware of what they need to do to comply.
To conclude—I apologise for giving great detail on the four instruments before the Committee—self-evidently, the first duty of the Government is to keep our country safe; I know that view is shared across the Committee. That is why the Prime Minister placed national security at the heart of his plan for change. It is also why we are supporting the police and intelligence services to confront and combat the threats we face, including those from foreign states. The measures before us are among our decisive steps to bring into force the foreign influence registration scheme. I look forward to comments and questions from noble Lords, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. I am in favour of the foreign influence registration scheme and I well remember when the Act went through the House in 2023. I support the transparency that my noble friend the Minister talked about, and I hope that this works. I echo what my noble friend said towards the end of his remarks, which is that registration in itself does not mean that someone is doing something wrong, but it will be part and parcel of what we hope will be a successful series of measures in support of the Act.
I will raise a few items in the order in which they are laid before us, which is not quite the order in which my noble friend took us through them. The first relates to the exemptions for certain foreign power investment funds and so on. I understand—my noble friend made this point—that the exemptions are designed to ensure proportionality by reducing the amount of routine activity required. I am all in favour of increasing the transparency of foreign-power influence over UK democracy.
I refer to Regulation 3 which exempts financial arrangements to provide financial support to students in FE and HE. It says and uses the phrase
“where foreign powers give directions to the student or to the education provider”.
I hope my noble friend will not mind if I ask exactly what that phrase means.
The National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025 are very important. I do not know how big a website we will end up with. Regulation 3 provides a whole series of exemptions. They seem to add up to quite a lot and made me wonder whether we might end up with so much of the information being exempt that it might not yield very much. What is the procedure for the Secretary of State to exercise one or more of these exemptions under Regulation 3 of that SI?
On the regulations on Iran, I entirely understand—and this goes with the regulations on Russia—why Parts 1 and 2 cover the areas of official and government organisations and so on. In relation to the impact on businesses, charities and smaller micro-businesses, which the Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges will be the case, there are figures given about how long it will take to register—it is only £9.67 and so on. The draft impact assessment states that:
“Registrations are likely to be completed by an employee in a Human Resources or legal compliance department”.
Forgive me, but it seems that many micro-businesses do not have human resources or legal service operatives, so can my noble friend tell us whether that might prove to be a problem?
On the last regulations, those in relation to Russia, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Without this instrument, it would only be necessary for people acting at the direction of Russia to conduct political influence activity in the UK to register with FIRS”.
That would not be enough. What in these regulations might be helpful in relation to the daily cyberattacks conducted on the UK? We have reason to believe that they emanate from hostile actors that might be based in Russia or acting on behalf of a hostile state.
Finally, this is not in any of the regulations in this group, but I noticed the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has asked—and I ask now—why, at the moment, has China not been the subject of this SI process? Can the Minister give some idea of the Government’s thinking at the moment about whether China might in future, and, if so, when, come within the purview of the operation of the Act that we are discussing and the regulations that seek to give it effect?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for bringing these SIs to the Grand Committee. Like my noble friend, I shall speak briefly about one or two points, in my case, specifically about Iran and the provisions that apply to Iran and, more specifically, about the effectiveness of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has developed a notorious reputation over the past 30 or 40 years. It came along with the revolution in 1979 and has established itself as an arm of the Iranian state since then.
I particularly want to talk about Iran for one reason: Iran is probably the only significant world power that is effectively run by clerical fascists. I cannot think of a parallel country. It is a state that uses proxies all over the world. We all know about Hamas and Hezbollah, but there are other proxies, and this has been covered extensively in the mainstream press. The IRGC uses criminal gangs to further its aims in this country and other countries across Europe and the world.
I have two questions for the Minister. Can he confirm that anybody who does not register a relationship with the Iranian state, who fails to register an interest or a connection, will be committing a criminal act and be subject to criminal prosecution? Does that also apply to anybody who has a clear relationship with an IRGC or Iranian state proxy, for instance Hezbollah or Hamas?
Would that also apply to others? For instance, there have been parliamentarians in the past—I hope that there are none now, but there probably are—who have accepted money from PressTV. They will have to register that in the normal way, but do they also have to register it under the provisions of the statutory instruments that we are talking about today?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cryer. I have a high level of sympathy with the points that he raised. Indeed, when we discussed the Iran sanctions regime in Grand Committee, many of those arguments were made and made powerfully. I hope that the Minister will respond to that specific point. I also associate myself with the questions asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I want to expand on a couple of them and ask some further supplementary questions.
First, I thank the Minister for outlining in clear terms the instruments. There are areas where I agree with him very strongly. The FIR scheme, which was passed as a result of considerable cross-party work, is one that I and my party support. As a veteran of each stage of that Bill, now Act, and all of the discussions there, I am very pleased that the Government are now in a position to bring this scheme into effect. It is an important measure. I thank the officials for their work in putting it together because its importance will rely on the fact that it is both reliable and enforceable; it therefore has to be right. I know that there has previously been some debate around the speed at which the Government are doing it but, from my point of view, it was always about getting it right.
On implementation, it is interesting to see these measures. I will ask a couple of questions relating to them. As the Minister indicated, we previously discussed in the Chamber the announcement that Iran and Russia and their state entities are to be on the first enhanced tier list. I will come to China in a moment. I am content on the publication of information under Sections 65, 68 and 70, as these regulations state, but can the Minister say a bit more about how searchable they will be and how easily accessible they will be on GOV.UK? I know that there will be an online portal. Can the Minister say a little more about that? The value of them will be in how transparent and accessible they are, rather than just being available online, but that is a minor consideration.
I now want to ask a couple of questions with regards to publication. The regulations state that, in terms of one of the exemptions from publication, the Secretary of State will be able to make a decision if a person will have information published about them that is likely to be seriously prejudicial to commercial interests. I would suspect that anybody who does not wish their information to be published, even if they have to do so under threat of prosecution, will state that that information is prejudicial to their commercial interests.
I hope that the Minister is able to say that that is an extremely high bar and it will be very hard to litigate, because what I want to see avoided is anybody who is in a position of seeking to hide the information, having been forced to register it, then having a whole phalanx of lawyers to state what the commercial interests may well be. That will drive a coach and horses through the principle of the transparency of this. I hope the Minister can reassure me on that point.
I will come back to some of the aspects of the exemptions in a moment, but first, on Iran, I am satisfied, as I said in the Chamber in response to the Statement. I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the points raised in the Chamber. It was referenced in the impact assessment of the regulations:
“Iran may introduce reciprocal measures to monitor the overseas activities of the UK government. Persons could be prosecuted if engaged in unregistered arrangements or activity, even if the activity itself is legitimate. There is a potential risk of discrimination and exclusion against the diaspora of Iranians living in the UK”.
What proactive work is being done, given that the Home Office has recognised that there may well be a threat to the diaspora within the UK? How has that community been contacted in advance of the scheme being put into operation, given the fact that the risk has already been identified? I hope that the Government are doing this, because we have already seen—as the Minister is well aware, and as we debated in the Chamber—the reach of the Iranian regime within the UK and the threat to those who have sought asylum from it.
The same will apply to Russia: the same risk assessment was provided for Russia, of course. I should state that I have a slight interest when discussing Russia and Russian sanctions, given that I have been sanctioned. I appreciate that the guidance is being issued, but can the Minister confirm that, for the bodies listed in the regulations, any commercial or legal entities in the UK that are providing services for these entities will equally come under the remit of the Part 1 and 2 bodies in the legislation? There should be no loopholes for UK-based entities providing services for those entities because, as we know, Russia and Iran are expert at seeking to circumvent arrangements that the UK puts in place.
I noticed that the impact assessment, under “Rationale for intervention”, mentions
“certain academic and research activities which are directed by the government of Iran”,
and it is similar for Russia. That leads me on to the exemptions. The Government have identified that “academic and research activities” are a tool that is being used, and they are now bringing forward an exemption for them. I do not understand this, and I hope the Minister can say in very clear terms the rationale behind exempting exactly those areas of activity which the rationale in the regulations cites as reasons for their being brought in. I hope that we will be able to have a bit more clarity when it comes to the exemptions. It is important because we know that these very areas, which include academia, research and the use of sovereign funds, and those that are facilitating the investment and advice of those sovereign funds, are exactly the instruments by which we have seen attempted foreign interference. The area where we have seen that on “an epic scale” is from China.
That leads me to the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, indicated with regard to China. This week, we have been debating the Government’s strategic defence review. It starts with reference to China supporting the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine. We know that the director-general and the former director-general of MI5 have referred on the record to the enormous efforts that the CCP and the Chinese Government have deployed with regard to espionage and attempted espionage in the UK. In October 2023, the director-general went public and said that more than 20,000 people in the UK had been approached covertly by Chinese spies. We know that that pace has accelerated since then, but the Government do not believe it is warranted for China state enterprises or state entities to register their activities under the enhanced tier.
The noble Viscount quite rightly quoted the Secondary Legislation Committee of this House, which drew to our attention the threat posed by China, and the Home Office’s response as to why China is not on the enhanced tier list. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee quoted the Home Office saying, and this may be in the Minister’s notes:
“Countries are considered separately for specification on the enhanced tier and decisions are made based on a robust evidence base”.
I have not seen any evidence base published by the Government as to why China would not be on an enhanced tier, given the “epic scale” of its attempts not only to subvert our institutions but to co-opt them to act in espionage. The director-general of MI5 gave examples of more than 20 instances where China was actively seeking to use UK companies and universities, through investments and learning agreements, to access sensitive information and technology. The Government are proposing to exempt those exact areas from these measures, and I do not know why.
The Minister also referenced the exemption of sovereign wealth funds. This piqued my interest, because I raised this during the passage of Bill. I raised it in January 2023 when I specifically cited the
“sovereign wealth fund of a state, which might or might not be listed on a stock exchange and which may or may not, in effect, be a private sector arm of the interests of a foreign power”.—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1476.]
I sought clarification from the Minister in the previous Government with regard to that, and I was told that sovereign wealth funds would be within the scope of this legislation. I just cannot understand why this Government have changed the assurance that I received from the previous Government, so that sovereign wealth funds will no longer be part of this. The deployment and the investment of sovereign wealth funds and pension funds in key UK infrastructure is of course something that we should focus on, whether or not it is part of the information to be published. I hope very much that Chinese investment, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, and also the lack of published information for those who will claim some form of commercial sensitivity, will not be used to circumvent what we worked very hard to achieve, which is to prevent the kind of interference that the Government have said they are concerned about. I hope that before we are asked to support these regulations in the Chamber, we are given very clear reassurances, so that my concerns can be assuaged.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, these four draft regulations represent the next step in operationalising the foreign influence registration scheme established under Part 4 of the National Security Act 2023, a piece of legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that we support these instruments. They provide essential tools better to protect our national security from covert foreign influence, a matter of the utmost importance.
As the Minister explained, the regulations are designed to enhance transparency, deter malign activity and enable earlier disruption of potentially harmful arrangements directed by hostile states. In an increasingly complex and contested geopolitical environment, this is both necessary and timely.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Lord has obviously made a decision that, even though China is not on the enhanced tier, Confucius institutions, Chinese pension funds and Chinese state funds will now be exempted. I assume that the Conservatives support that.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Indeed—I think I will cover that point as I go along.
Although we support the intent and scope of these measures, scrutiny must not end there. These regulations are not purely technical instruments; they go to the heart of how the UK responds to evolving and increasingly sophisticated state threats. It is in that spirit that I raise three points.
First, the omission of China from the enhanced tier is quite simply a glaring absence. There is now consistent cross-party consensus, reflected in previous debates in both Houses and across the intelligence community, that China poses a systemic and strategic challenge to the United Kingdom. China has targeted Members of this Parliament, launched cyberattacks on UK institutions and engaged in covert activity on British soil. In 2021, it sanctioned two Members of this House and, in 2024, the Government publicly attributed malicious cyber campaigns against MPs and the Electoral Commission to the Chinese state. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a wider sustained pattern. Given this record, it is difficult to understand why China has not yet been put under the enhanced tier of this scheme.
The Government have stated that they do not comment on individual countries, and that designations are made on a case-by-case basis. However, this is not about speculation but about providing clarity and strategic coherence in our approach to national security. The public and Parliament are entitled to understand the rationale behind such decisions, particularly when the state in question has been repeatedly named by the intelligence community as a principal source of hostile activity. Indeed, the Home Office’s own professional guidance lists Russia, Iran and China as the foremost state-based threats. The director-general of MI5 has echoed this view, as has already been said this afternoon. So why the inconsistency? What message does it send, either to those carrying out covert activities or to our international partners, when a state widely recognised as a threat is excluded from a scheme specifically designed to counter exactly this kind of behaviour? I therefore urge the Government to reconsider this decision, or at the very least to provide a clearer public explanation of their current position.
On enforcement and oversight, effective implementation is vital and registration requirements must be communicated clearly. Guidance must be accessible, and enforcement must be proportionate and consistent across sectors and regions. Can the Minister confirm that the necessary resources are in place to support enforcement, and that compliance will be monitored in a structured and transparent manner? We note that Section 82 of the National Security Act 2023 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the scheme’s operation, which is welcome, but can the Minister confirm whether that report will include an assessment of the effectiveness of the current exemptions, and whether further exemptions or additional country designations are under active consideration?
Finally, although this scheme is a welcome development, we must acknowledge that it is only one part of a much broader challenge. Hostile states are adapting constantly. Disinformation, cyber interference, economic coercion and influence operations now span multiple domains. Responding effectively demands not just new legal frameworks but a whole of government approach, with sustained investment in resilience, cross-sectoral co-ordination and continued international alignment.
In conclusion, we support these measures, which are necessary, appropriate and overdue, but they must be implemented in a manner that is robust, proportionate and responsive to the evolving nature of state threats—not just today but in the years ahead. We remain concerned about the exclusion of China from the enhanced tier. We urge the Government to keep this matter under close and continuous review, and to act with greater transparency about the strategic direction of our national security posture.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful both to the contributors to this short debate and for the broad support that has been given for the regulations before the Committee. I will try to answer each noble Lord in turn. There might be a bit of overlap, because some of the issues that have been raised do overlap, but I will try to cover the points raised by each noble Lord in turn.
I shall start with my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned cyber and cyberattacks. I assure him that the security services, the agencies, the Home Office and the UK Government are acutely aware of hostile states potentially undertaking attacks, and of criminal gangs doing the same. Significant work, which my noble friend would not expect me to talk about in public, is ongoing to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. I give him that assurance as a whole.
My noble friend asked in particular about the exemptions for students and the impact on small businesses or small organisations. I will take the latter first. The registration process is designed to be as simple as possible—this touches on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The Home Office anticipates that the process should take a maximum of 30 minutes. We are not expecting small businesses or micro-businesses to register in large numbers if they are in direct relationships with foreign powers, but—again, this goes to a point made by a number of noble Lords—there is comprehensive guidance online to support the registrant and their process, and to support individuals and larger organisations. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, self-evidently, but we are confident that that will be a relatively simple process from 1 July onwards. Again, I put out the hand of friendship to all noble Lords: if there is feedback downstream on how the scheme operates, from any perspective that is brought to their attention, we would welcome it.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate also asked for clarification on the education exemption. Where someone is in an arrangement with a foreign power and is completing a course in further study, they do not necessarily need to register activities, but it is reasonable to complete the course of education; to uphold the reputation of the provider; to meet the standards of conduct expected by the providers of financial assistance; and to notify any person of personal information. Again, I hope that that is helpful.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned China. I may as well hit that point and discuss it at this time. I think that they all know the answer to the question they asked, but I will give it in the phraseology I have to use. Each country is considered on its merits and no decisions have been made. Countries are considered separately for specification and decisions are made on evidence.
On China more broadly, we have been clear as a Government that we are going to take a consistent, long-term, strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China. This means co-operating where we can, competing where we need to and challenging robustly where we must, including on areas of national security. However, each country is considered on its merits and no decisions have been made. The regulations before the Committee highlight two specific nations where we believe there is a significant threat—Russia and Iran—which is why we have brought them forward. I hope that helps my noble friend Lord Stansgate on his points.
I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Cryer continuing his long interest in issues related to Iran. I know that he has raised this in the Chamber on a number of occasions. He asked what happens if there is a failure to register. That will be a criminal offence in the event of an individual’s activities coming to light linked to a registered nation under the regulations before us today and will carry a potential penalty of five years’ imprisonment. That is not for me to judge. That is for the courts to judge and the police to prosecute, but that is certainly part of this issue today.
My noble friend mentioned in particular the impact on parliamentarians. There is no requirement for parliamentarians who are being lobbied to register with the scheme, and that allows the democratic process to continue. He commented on proscription and mentioned Hamas. Hamas is not specified. The regulations would cover anyone in a relationship with the IRGC in Iran but, as ever, for any organisation, at any time, the Government keep under review the question of proscription. At the moment, this is where we are, but we keep everything under review at all times accordingly. As my noble friend will know, the arrests on 17 May of three Iranian nationals who have been charged with offences under the National Security Act show that the Government are consistent. That matter will go before the courts and be determined by the judiciary in due course.
My noble friend also mentioned proxies. Although I have touched on this, I think it is important that I say that it is the person who is in a relationship with the foreign power who has to register. Therefore, those who are proxies are within the scheme, for example, companies acting under the direction of the Russians or the Iranians. If the proxy is not registered, then the person in the UK acting on their behalf could well be committing an offence. Again, it is our intention to ensure that we act in the interests of national security and of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of points. Again, I am grateful for his broad support and thank him for that support to date and in getting the legislation in this House in the past. He mentioned commercial interests and asked whether this is a high bar. Let me, I hope, reassure him that the Government’s intention is that it should be a high bar. UK companies providing services to bodies listed will have to register. The exemptions are carefully crafted to ensure that what is out of scope is as narrow as possible, while still fulfilling the scheme’s aim. We have put in place exemptions on sovereign wealth funds, which he talked about. The exemption for sovereign wealth funds is not about prioritising growth over national security as national security remains the first priority of Government, but about ensuring that the scheme remains proportionate. The link between a sovereign wealth fund and a foreign power is inherently transparent, so requiring them to register with the scheme would bring very limited benefits. I hope that answers his point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. On one hand I can understand it, on the other hand, I just disagree with him, respectfully. Sovereign wealth funds are not just one thing that is obvious to see. Sovereign wealth funds can be extraordinarily broad in their scope, their legal complexity and their financial instruments, which can be spread across a number of different jurisdictions. That is why they are used by state entities. We seek to have good relationships with some, because we want them to invest in the UK, but others are used for the very reason of their complexities. I just do not understand the rationale of the Government to have a blanket exemption for any fund that is principally owned by a sovereign Government. That is notwithstanding the further dilution of the share capital that the Government are now proposing, from 25% to 100%. I do not understand the rationale for this.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Well, we may end up having an honest disagreement, and that is fair. That is what politics is about; sometimes we do not necessarily agree. The exemptions that the Government have brought forward today match the exemptions contained in the primary legislation. They include routine diplomatic activity, recognised news publishers and legal activities carried out by lawyers. These were the exemptions introduced through the regulations being debated today. They ensure, we think, that the scheme’s requirements remain proportionate to the threats that we face. We have been very public about those threats in this debate, in the House of Commons and in the regulations.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
On the subject of exceptions, in Regulation 6 of the statutory instrument on publication, for example, how is Parliament going to know the extent of the exemptions that have been granted? On the face of it, we will not know.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If my noble friend allows me a moment’s reflection on that detail, I will respond to him with a fuller, meaningful reply. I believe that we are going to be transparent in all of this. The whole purpose of these regulations is to provide transparency and ensure that we tackle national security and give proportionate responses. Colleagues and I will reflect on the point he has made and I will respond to him in detail if I can.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
This is our only opportunity to debate this in detail—by the way, I do not detract from the Minister’s intent at all. I have two questions. First, forgive my ignorance, but do the exemptions also apply—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have not quite finished my responses to the noble Lord yet.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Well, does he wish to do that now? I will then be able to ask him the question about it. Do the exemptions apply to the enhanced-tier activities too? The policy rationale in the Explanatory Memorandum cites academia and economic activity, and the Government are proposing to exempt those. My second point was that, if he wanted to write to the noble Viscount and myself in advance of us being asked to approve these in the Chamber, that would be of benefit.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am trying to explain to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that we have put exemptions in. I have explained in my opening speech what those exemptions are and have indicated that they are meant to be designed to be proportionate. If there are points that the noble Lord and my noble friend wish to press further, I will try to answer those today, but I have just indicated that I will reflect on those to see whether I can give further guidance prior to the end of this contribution. If we are not able to do that, then I will ensure that, before this is brought before the House on Monday or Tuesday next week—whichever day the final regulations are presented—we will have clarification on those points in the hands of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I am trying, as ever, to be helpful.
The noble Lord also asked the question about how accessible public registration will be. Information on only the political tier will be published. It will be accessible via an online register, which will be linked to the registration portal. It will be on GOV.UK, and there will be filters to support those searching.
Again, I say to the noble Lord that the purpose of that transparency, and the whole purpose of these regulations, is to ensure that the Government register concerns on areas of international security, look at where that registration and influence is and flush out that influence in terms of individuals who are currently operating potentially in a covert way but will, in future, have to register, with the details published online. If they are not registered and are subsequently found to be operating, they will have to face the force of the law in the courts on those issues.
The noble Lord also asked who decides and who polices the exemptions. That is a broad area of concern for him, I think. The exemptions have been set out in the regulations that we have laid. If an individual does not meet the exemption criteria, they must register their arrangement with Iran or Russia. If they do not register that arrangement, they will commit a criminal offence. There are existing measures to address risks associated with international students as a whole.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the exemptions applying to the enhanced tier, there will be an annual report that will set out the exemptions under regulation. There will be different exemptions according to each tier. When I look later today at Hansard—which is always helpful to Ministers—I will reflect on what has been said by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on that issue. If my response today has not met their concerns, I will ensure that they have a letter in their hand by Monday morning. I will hold myself to that over the weekend.
I think I have covered most of the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in our discussion today. Although I did not refer directly to him and the points that he raised, I think that I have covered elsewhere the issues that he raised on exemptions, China and so on. I hope that I have satisfied him.
In summary, I thank my noble friends Lord Cryer and Lord Stansgate and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions. I hope that they have clarity that the purpose of these regulations is to provide protections on national security for UK citizens from malign foreign influences of countries that are undertaking activity in the United Kingdom that is causing disruption to indigenous citizens of those countries who live here and to the United Kingdom as a whole. The purpose is to provide openness and transparency around the links between the Iranian regime or the Russian regime and individuals who are operating on their behalf. The regulations are an improvement on where we are now and give clarity. They provide exemptions, but we believe that those exemptions are proportionate. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, the regulations being introduced today will remove the time limit on a temporary exemption which pension funds currently have from clearing standardised over-the-counter derivatives contracts, such as interest rate swaps, through a central counterparty. This means that the exemption will continue indefinitely, ending the need for the Government to renew it every two years if we conclude that this is necessary. The draft regulations will help UK pensioners by supporting pension funds’ ability to invest in assets which generate returns for their benefit. Maintaining the exemption is also in line with the Government’s priorities to increase productive investment by pension funds to support economic growth.
Central counterparties, or CCPs, are a type of financial market infrastructure used by firms to reduce risks when trading on financial markets. They sit between the buyers and sellers of financial instruments, providing assurance that contractual obligations will be fulfilled. They do this by collecting collateral, known as margin, from all their users that can be used to cover any shortfall if a default occurs. The process of transacting through a CCP is known as clearing. In 2009, G20 countries agreed that certain standard derivatives contracts should be cleared through CCPs to help reduce risks in the financial system. In the EU, this was implemented through legislation and is known as the clearing obligation. At the time, it was decided that pension funds should be exempted from this obligation. This was because of the particular challenges that pension funds would face in meeting CCP margin requirements.
CCPs require variation margin, collateral which covers price movements on derivatives contracts, to be posted in cash. Pension funds do not usually hold large cash reserves, as they invest the large majority of their resources in assets, such as gilts and corporate bonds, to provide returns for pension holders. This means that meeting the requirement to post variation margin in cash can be more difficult for pension funds to meet than for other firms. Requiring them to clear their derivatives could cause them to increase their cash holdings, reducing their investment in other assets and their ability to generate returns for future pensioners. The UK assimilated the clearing obligation and this exemption in UK domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The exemption was initially designed as a temporary measure, but it has since been extended several times. The Government currently need to lay secondary legislation every two years if we conclude that it is necessary to extend the exemption.
The Government extended the exemption most recently in June 2023 and noted that it would be desirable to put in place a long-term policy approach to remove the need for future temporary extensions. That is what these draft regulations seek to achieve. The Treasury has since conducted a review of the exemption, working closely with the UK financial services regulators. The review also gathered input from industry stakeholders through a call for evidence which was launched in November 2023. The review found that requiring pension funds to clear derivatives could potentially bring financial stability benefits, such as reducing counterparty risk, and could enhance resilience to shocks by increasing pension funds’ cash buffers.
However, the review also identified concerns from some market participants that removing the exemption could increase pressure on the liquidity management of pension funds, particularly under stressed market conditions, which could increase financial stability risk. The review also found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in more productive assets if the exemption were removed. This could reduce their returns, potentially impacting the retirement benefits of future pensioners. This would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Government’s wider growth reforms—including the pensions investment review, the final report of which was published last week, which seeks to unlock productive investment by pension funds to support economic growth.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear and helpful introduction of these regulations.
I just have two issues to raise; it would overegg them to describe them as issues of concern, but we need to recognise them. First, these clearing obligations are there to protect investors. The level of risk is materially increased by removing those obligations; we need to understand that. On balance, it may still be a reasonable thing to do, but we need to recognise that there is risk involved.
The second, bigger issue is that the Pension Schemes Bill, which was published an hour ago—I am holding it in my hand—makes significant on pension schemes in terms of the investments that they hold and the way in which they undertake their investment policy. It needs to be recognised that this very minor measure is part of that more general review, which will take place because of the Bill. I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Minister report that the policy will be kept under review. The fact that we have this pensions Bill means that it will inevitably be part of that process. The whole thing needs to fit together both to provide the investments that secure members’ benefits and to provide members with the reassurance that their money is being kept well.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important debate before the Grand Committee today. While technical in nature, the debate strikes at the very heart of our pensions system. It concerns the management of risk, the generation of returns for pension schemes and the financial security of our country. Derivatives play a crucial role in the operation of pension funds. They allow for efficient exposure to asset classes without necessitating the purchase of the underlying assets. They enable tactical asset allocation decisions to be executed more swiftly and cost-effectively than physical rebalancing and, through leverage, they offer the ability to increase market exposure without tying up significant amounts of capital. I know all of this from my experience as a trustee of the Tesco pension fund some years ago. Above all, derivatives are essential because pension funds face long-term liabilities that are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates, to inflation and to currency fluctuations.
These instruments are vital in managing such risks, especially in an uncertain and volatile world. Interest rate swaps hedge against fluctuations in interest rates that affect the valuation of liabilities. Inflation swaps protect against unexpected shifts in inflation, which is especially relevant where pensions are index-linked. Currency forwards and options manage foreign exchange risk where assets or liabilities are denominated in non-sterling currencies. It is the management of risk more than anything else that justifies their inclusion in the portfolio strategies of pension funds and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, the level of risk is materially increased by this regulation. He also rightly referred to the Pension Schemes Bill, which has only just been published. I am afraid that due to other commitments, I have not yet had time to study it.
Since the European Market Infrastructure Regulation was introduced in 2012, pension funds have been granted an exemption from the central clearing obligation, recognising their unique challenge in meeting margin requirements as central counterparties. Pension funds operate on a long-term, illiquid investment model, and this fundamentally mismatches the short-term, high-frequency liquidity demands of CCPs, particularly under stressed market conditions.
Will the Minister outline the contingency plans in place should the absence of mandatory clearing suddenly appear to increase the risk of counterparty defaults?
I have to say that the exemption from these insurance-type arrangements of a CCP carries its own risks. The Government bear a heavy responsibility to maintain confidence in a financial system upon which livelihoods depend. The government review mentioned by the Minister concluded that removing the exemption could impair the ability of pension funds to invest in productive assets. That must be weighed carefully against the imperative of effective risk management. Can the Minister clarify how bilateral arrangements will be monitored for resilience, given that derivatives are no longer subject to central clearing? He talked about keeping this under review, which I think was helpful.
Our financial markets are deeply embedded in the global system. Can the Minister explain how this move aligns with international financial regulatory frameworks and, indeed, with the EU and US, which have slightly different rules from the UK? Furthermore, has the Minister assessed the potential reputational impact on the UK’s standing in international markets, particularly in the context of post-G20 commitments to mandatory central clearing, which the Minister referred to? Finally, will the Minister publish the underlying risk analysis or cost benefit assessment that supports the decisions to go for an indefinite extension period? Without such transparency, it is difficult to understand how the Government have reached their conclusion and indeed why they have chosen this policy path.
The current impact assessment states that the measure
“mitigates the risk of disruption to the market”
that might occur if pension funds were required to restructure their investment strategies “at short notice”. This would be ahead of the exemptions expiring, which happens to be 18 June—the week after next. However, this is a narrow, short-term cost analysis. I am interested in the wider picture of longer-term cost versus the benefits of alternative systems, so I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on whether he is willing to publish his cost-benefit assessment or, perhaps, to say bit more about the detail.
I urge the Minister to engage deeply with the concerns raised and to provide reassurance that the Government’s decision rests on a sound and transparent evidential foundation. We are dealing with an important subject and a risk that, as I am sure we all agree, needs to be properly managed in the interests of UK plc.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for their contributions and questions. First, to answer them both, one thing that the Government are after is growth, obviously, but the other thing is financial stability; both of their contributions referred to that. This is a key priority for the Government. However, the evidence on whether removing the exemption would generate direct financial stability benefits was mixed. For example, some responses to the call for evidence noted that removing the exemption could make stress events worse by increasing liquidity pressures on pension funds. In contrast, the Government found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in productive assets if the exemption were removed.
On the other issues, such as how the underlying risk will change and how we will keep that under review, the statutory instrument provides long-term clarity for market participants, which is very important in terms of the policy position. This will help with long-term planning of investment strategies by pension funds to meet their future liabilities. As I have noted, the Government will keep this policy under review in co-ordination with the UK regulatory authorities. If there are changes to market dynamics or wider government reforms that have a material impact on the value of mandatory central clearing for pension funds, the Government may reassess this issue.
On the increased burden on pension funds, this policy maintains the status quo. Removing the exemption would have placed more strain on pension funds. This gives assurance to the pension markets around the long-term consistency in our policy approach.
Finally, on the international market, our market is different from those of the EU and the United States as far as pensions are concerned. The response to the call for evidence indicated that the UK defined benefit market is structurally different from that of other jurisdictions, such as the US and the European Union, so it is appropriate that we take a different decision on this issue. The Government are committed to maintaining our high standards of regulation and financial services, including adhering to relevant international standards, where appropriate. In the US, pension schemes tend to be of shorter duration. There is also a larger and more diverse corporate bond market, which can be used for hedging; this means that the derivatives are used less there than they are in the UK.
I hope that these answers are what noble Lords are looking for.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is very helpful—particularly on the international side. One does need to look at this in an international context; nowadays, we are so aware of the ups and downs of global markets. However, the Minister did not answer the question about the impact assessment. It may be that he does not have an answer today, but this is something that I am often concerned about because I think that good cost-benefit analysis is vital to good government. I made the point that the cost-benefit analysis that we got was a rather short-term thing; it would be very helpful to have a response on that.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Basically, what we are doing is maintaining the status quo. Things have been like this for several years now; we are just ensuring that the status quo continues into the future. We will review it if we need to, such as if the dynamics in the market change, but what we are offering is consistency for the industry. That is an important aspect of this statutory instrument.
Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, financial services fulfil a vital role for people and businesses across the UK and the Government are committed to ensuring high standards of customer protection. These regulations form part of this commitment by strengthening protections for customers, including consumers, businesses and charities, when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their provider.
While decisions to terminate services are generally commercial decisions, customers must be treated fairly. Noble Lords will be aware that concerns have been raised in this area over recent years. This has included concerns about services being terminated on the basis of customers’ lawful beliefs and political opinions. The Government are clear that customers should not see services terminated due to lawful freedom of expression. There are already laws that prohibit providers discriminating against UK consumers on these grounds. However, in other areas existing legislation does not always provide appropriate protection and is not sufficiently clear.
Currently, payments legislation contains no obligation on providers to explain why they are terminating payment services, making it difficult for customers to understand the reasons for terminations, rectify issues or know whether to bring a complaint against their provider’s decision. Furthermore, the current requirement that providers must give customers at least two months’ notice does not always provide customers sufficient time to manage the impacts of a termination and, where needed, find an alternative provider. These regulations make changes to address these issues.
Specifically, the regulations will amend the Payment Services Regulations 2017 to require providers to give customers a longer notice period of at least 90 days before terminating a payment services contract and a sufficiently detailed and specific explanation so the customer understands why it is being terminated. Providers must also advise the customer of how to complain to their provider and of any right they have to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The regulations also clarify ambiguities in legislation to ensure that these new protections are applied consistently. There are some exceptions to the new requirements, mainly so that providers can continue to meet other legal requirements.
Lastly, the regulations make equivalent changes to the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 so that people who apply for and use basic bank accounts will benefit from the new rules. These changes will increase transparency for customers, ensuring that they understand providers’ decisions and have more time and information to make a complaint or find an alternative provider. The changes will take effect from 28 April 2026 and apply to the termination of payment services contracts that are concluded for an indefinite period and entered into on or after that date.
I know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this measure as an instrument of interest in its 25th report, published on 15 May. I am grateful for the consideration the Committee has given this legislation, and I shall respond to the points it raised.
First, the Government acknowledge that there have been concerns about customers being debanked on the basis of their lawful beliefs and political opinions, and that this formed part of what initially led to a review of legislation in this area. Since coming into office, this Government have taken a fresh look at the issue from a broader perspective. As I said earlier, providers are already prohibited from discriminating against UK consumers based on their lawful beliefs and political opinions, but there are shortcomings in wider legislation that governs how providers terminate payment services contracts. The Government are therefore taking a wider approach to strengthen legislation and to enhance fairness and transparency for all customers more generally.
Secondly, regarding the length of the 90-day notice period and the implementation period for the instrument, the Government’s approach is based on extensive engagement. We have sought to balance strengthening the protections for customers with minimising the burdens on firms.
In conclusion, these regulations would make important changes to ensure that customers are treated fairly, while respecting providers’ rights to make commercial decisions. I hope that the Grand Committee will endorse these reforms. I look forward to the debate and beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this statutory instrument in this brief debate. We note that these regulations build on previous legislation and arise from a consultation that began under the previous Conservative Government in July 2023.
I agree with the Minister that the extension of the minimum notice period for contract termination from two months to 90 days is a prudent and welcome measure. Even more significant is the requirement for payment service providers to provide detailed and specific reasons for termination, thereby enhancing transparency and fairness and discouraging needless debanking; we all saw the unfortunate effect of Coutts’ closure of Nigel Farage’s account. Additionally, informing customers of their right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service is a useful safeguard.
I have two problems with these regulations. First, I am concerned by the wide-ranging exemptions to the new rules—“exceptions” is probably the right word. These include the anti-money laundering requirements and the suspicion of serious crime, as well as the possible commission of a public order or harassment offence. These are substantial exceptions that could be the subject of unfair debanking, with the accused unable to know what it is claimed he or she has done wrong. I therefore welcome the change in the threshold from “reasonable belief” to “reasonable grounds to suspect” for serious crime exceptions following consultation, but I wonder whether this is enough.
I should add that small and medium-sized businesses are not exempted from the new requirements. What targeted support or guidance will be provided to help these providers manage the increased compliance burden? These measures could cause problems for businesses already under pressure from NICs and the prospect of new regulation. We all want fairness but the net cost to businesses is £6.4 million a year, by the normally prudent Treasury estimates. This means a net present value of minus £55.4 million.
In the light of this, how do the Government plan to monitor and evaluate these regulations over time to ensure that the extended notice periods and disclosure obligations generally lead to better outcomes for consumers, rather than creating additional administrative burdens for the suppliers of financial services? Can the Government also clarify how conflicts between these termination requirements and other legal obligations on payment service providers will be managed, especially where other laws might take precedence? What mechanisms will be in place to resolve such conflicts fairly and transparently?
Secondly, the main problem for consumers of payment services is not being able to secure a bank account at all. I know this from my own family’s experience of being denied banking, reducing the scope for moving to a different, more competitive bank. This is on grounds such as being a publicly exposed person, which is our experience; selling arms, which it seems wrong to exclude given our growing defence needs; or ungrounded fear by the provider of money laundering. What is the Government’s position on this difficult area of securing a bank account?
I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continued engagement with the Government and regulators to ensure that these important reforms deliver tangible and lasting benefits for payment service users.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her speech and those questions. These are important regulations which clarify the situation we have lived under over the last few years, as far as this issue is concerned.
On the several points and questions she has raised, I will answer the last one first, which was about access to banking services. The Government recognise the vital role that financial services provide; that is why we have introduced these new rules. The Government are focused on account closures as a priority. We continue to monitor wider access to bank account provision but recognise this is largely a commercial matter. Some 120 banking hubs have opened; another 200-plus will be opened in the next few years. That is not the limit or the target; it could go beyond that, but it depends on what LINK, which provide them, wants to do. It is, obviously, an ongoing issue. We want to ensure everybody has access to them.
On the new requirements that the noble Baroness suggested, there are important public policy reasons for the exemptions, which are necessary to enable payment service providers to continue to discharge other legal obligations or manage complex scenarios—for example, in relation to financial crime.
On the question of whether we will publish guidance, the Financial Conduct Authority, as the relevant regulator, will update the guidance to reflect the legislative changes. The Government have worked closely with industry, law enforcement and regulatory partners to ensure that expectations of payment service providers are clear.
With that, I think I have covered all the questions. I conclude by saying that the Government are committed to ensuring high standards of customer protection and financial inclusion across the financial services sector. These regulations make important changes but address long-standing concerns about protection given to customers when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their providers. This increased amount of notice and transparency will make it easier for customers to understand and manage the impact of their provider’s decisions, and to make a complaint or find an alternative provider where necessary. The changes will help deliver fairer outcomes and support the Government’s ambitions to deliver for working people. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was a little disappointed about the response on two points. One is on this business of small and medium-sized businesses. The Minister rightly referred to the FCA as the body that is responsible for guidance. It is supposed to care about small businesses and growth, following the letter that the Chancellor wrote to them. The Minister mentioned that there are more small and new businesses in the pipeline; that is good news. Small business spectacles are important, both for financial service providers and, indeed, for unfortunate customers who are trying to get bank accounts.
That was the second point: perhaps it was not possible as I did not give notice of the question, which is not the subject of these regulations, but he did not inform us as to what the latest is on helping people to open a bank account. His objective is the same as mine: to make sure that everybody can do that. He may know from discussion with other parliamentarians that the publicly exposed person issue has been a big one, and there are other issues. I would be interested to be referred to an update on how we are getting on on getting people to open bank accounts. It is important, in societies, for people to have bank accounts and not to be excluded. It is a great pity that it is so difficult, if you are a publicly exposed person, to move banks. That seems unfortunate.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I think these regulations help clarify all that. As far as small and medium-sized businesses are concerned, the Treasury Select Committee published figures in 2024 on the termination of business accounts in 2023. They were sourced from eight UK banks. The Treasury estimates that, on average, around 64% of business accounts were terminated due to suspicious activity or financial crime, due diligence or fraud, 10% were terminated because of dormancy and less than 1% for political exposure or other issues. We can all amplify the politically exposed people, and we know it is important, but the vast majority of closures and issues that we have are with financial crime and due diligence.
On the other question, we all want everyone who wants to have a bank account to have one. The decision to provide banking services is generally a commercial one by providers. I have already mentioned that 120 to 150, I think, banking hubs have been opened already, and a lot more will be opened. It is not a target. Once we get there, we can probably open more, but that has to be in consultation with the industry. The Government want to ensure that customers are treated fairly when providers decide to withdraw those services. We are focused on account terminations as a priority, given the material impact that a loss of banking services could have on a business already in operation. More widely, the Government continue to monitor evidence in relation to accessing banking services and welcome the FCA’s work in this area.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am reassured. It is good to have the figure for politically exposed debanking of 1%, although the significance depends on the total figure for the number of cases. It is more about when people are trying to get bank accounts. I think that the Farage event has led to a degree of understanding that it is important not to debank people who are already customers. What I think is less well understood is how when people who are, for example, politically exposed try to get a bank account, they have difficulties. I hope the regulators such as the FCA think about this because we want to try to make sure that people can have proper bank accounts. If there is any more material on that side of things, I give notice that I would be very interested in it, though I appreciate that I sprung this question on the Minister today although it is not the subject of the regulations.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I think increasing the time period from 60 days to 90 days and banks now having to write to the customer to say, “These are the reasons why we have this issue with your bank account” and, where it is appropriate and where they can, having to say that they can refer it to the ombudsman all helps. Obviously, this will be kept under review, but I think it is an important improvement on where we were in previous regulations.
AI Opportunities Action Plan
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to implement the recommendations of the independent report AI Opportunities Action Plan, published on 13 January.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government are taking action to capitalise on AI’s potential and welcomed the publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan, accepting all 50 recommendations. Implementation is well under way. We have launched the AI growth zone application process, held the first meeting of the AI Energy Council and signed an MoU with Anthropic. We are delivering the AI research resource, including the Isambard-AI and Dawn supercomputers, which will boost the UK’s AI compute capacity thirtyfold.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, Matt Clifford delivered an excellent report, with 50 wide-ranging recommendations across our economy and society. Does the Minister agree that the fact that they rightly range widely makes clear the need for the Government to bring forward cross-sector AI regulation to ensure that, wherever we come across AI in our lives, there will be clarity, certainty and consistency on how we have that AI experience, which would surely be good for innovators, investors, creatives, citizens and our country?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There are three approaches to making sure that we get consistency and appropriate regulation and support, as the noble Lord suggested. The first is that the regulators look after AI in the domains which they already look after. We are making sure that they are properly supported to do that and can join up—for example, in the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum—to learn lessons across different areas as they apply AI in their domains. The second is the approach of assurance: to develop an assurance industry in the UK which can assure people that, when they use AI, it performs what they expect it to and in the way they expect. That is true both for the Government—the Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government addresses some of the wider issues—and in developing the assurance industry overall and looking at areas such as bias in systems. The third, as he alluded to, is the question of what happens as artificial general intelligence, artificial superintelligence and the latest models come along. We remain committed to bringing forward AI legislation so that we can realise the enormous benefits and opportunities of this technology in a safe and secure way. We continue to refine our proposals and hope to launch a public consultation before the end of the year.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on what steps are being taken to promote more co-operation and collaboration between the public and private sectors in AI development and utilisation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The interaction between the public and private sectors is crucial in this, as it is in many other areas. UKRI is leading a number of public programmes which support universities and the ability to get spin-outs and developments from them, so there is considerable interaction at the beginning of the process. There is also interaction throughout the process; for example, the AI Security Institute is working with some of the largest companies and looking at their models to ensure that, as they are developed, issues that could come up are foreseen and, we hope, mitigated in advance. Collaboration between the public and private sectors is crucial in AI, as in many areas of technology development.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government have agreed to create a new function—UK sovereign AI—to partner with the private sector and maximise the UK’s stake in what is described as frontier AI. Further details were promised by spring 2025. By my calculation, spring is over. What powers will this unit have to invest directly in companies, create joint ventures or provide advanced market commitments, as recommended in the plan, and how will it ensure economic benefit and influence on AI governance in the UK?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
AI sovereignty is a crucial issue. It ranges from questions of what infrastructure and companies we need in this country to what public work we need to do to make sure that we can access the AI required. AI sovereignty is very much part of the AI action plan; the spending review is under way and there will be more information on what exactly will happen in its different areas post spending review. The areas the noble Lord raises are all important—they are the right ones. Spring is nearly over. It will not be in spring, but we hope to give more information shortly.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the press have indicated that there could be enormous improvements in public sector productivity if AI were introduced. What savings might be made in the public sector if we introduce AI?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
A series of funded programmes have been looking at the introduction of AI in government in particular. Some reports were published in the last couple of weeks showing time savings and degree of satisfaction, and identifying where the use of AI will be most useful and where it will be problematic. There are already some outputs from that work in the public domain. We will continue to make them public as we assess the performance of AI in government systems. A unit called i.AI is developing new approaches, such as Humphrey, which have been widely publicised.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I declare my tech interests as set out in the register. We welcome the GDS report, to which the Minister referred, on driving tactical productivity improvements in the Civil Service with AI tools. Does he agree that to realise deep strategic change through AI in the Civil Service will require a hugely ambitious digital transformation? Are the Government being realistic about how challenging this is likely to be? How will they keep Parliament updated on their approach and progress?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Oddly enough, I am aware of how difficult this is and how much work is needed. The requirements range from data to the ability to get it into a form that can be read and be interoperable; that is behind the national data library and the health data research service which we have announced. There are skills issues right across the Civil Service and elsewhere which need to be addressed, with skills increased, along with the application uptake of AI by businesses across the UK. All those are part of the AI Opportunities Action Plan, and there are things under way in each of those areas. I do not think this is straightforward. It will require some experimentation. There will be some things that will not work as well as expected and others that we will need to move faster on. I expect this to be a very dynamic field over the next few years.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, a strong emphasis in the AI Opportunities Action Plan is the development of human capital to maintain the UK as one of the leading countries in the world for AI. In the last four years for which the figures are available there has been a decrease of 39% in the percentage of UK-domiciled computer science graduates undertaking doctorates. This year, the situation is likely to be even worse, as for the first time EU students finishing a four-year undergraduate course in the UK will no longer count as home students. Is the Minister as concerned as I am by the sharp decrease in home students undertaking PhDs in computer science and AI? Are the Government considering any measures to reverse this trend, perhaps by reducing the interest rate on undergraduate loans to zero while graduate students are doing their PhDs?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord points out, there has been a decrease in PhD funding through UKRI from 2018 to 2022. The overall number of PhD students has not gone down, but the sources of funding have become more diversified. It is an important issue for the UK to be good and capable in the numbers of PhD students we have. Two new programmes are being developed as part of the AI opportunities plan: the AI fellowship programme and the AI scholarship programme. Both will be important to ensure that we have the skills we need to deliver on the plan. I take the point about the number of students who have gone from computer science into PhDs. That is an area that we need to look at and understand. As the noble Lord is aware, some of it is a classification question, in relation to EU students, but there is no doubt that we need to keep the number of students doing PhDs up.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, to follow on from the noble Lord’s point about skills, behind the flashiness and excitement of AI lie some boring things that have to be done. One of the big challenges to support an AI ecosystem in the UK is the byzantine procurement rules of government. Can the Minister tell us what he is doing to ensure that small and growing British-based AI companies have a crack at getting government contracts and therefore growing?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is an area close to my heart. It is a crucial part of stimulating innovation right across the patch. Government procurement ought to be a way in which innovation companies get their first indication of a signal, in many cases, of a potential customer. A commercial innovation hub has been set up in the Cabinet Office, precisely to try to make it much easier to deal with SMEs and others, which has historically been extremely difficult to do from a government procurement perspective.
Ukraine: UK Security Guarantee
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ukraine about proposals for the United Kingdom to provide a security guarantee to that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, a strong sovereign Ukraine is essential for Euro-Atlantic security and the UK’s national security. The UK is steadfast in our support for Ukraine. When the war ends, Ukraine will need to be secure against Russian aggression. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister signed the 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which builds on our bilateral security agreement signed last year, strengthening our security co-operation and forging closer links between our defence industries.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
While recognising the sheer bravado of those who executed Operation Spider Web, we have to accept that action has undermined Trump’s wider initiative, jeopardised his offer on the provision of security guarantees and hardened Russia’s attitude to conflict resolution. How can we ever secure a settlement and avoid substantial defence costs being imposed on European taxpayers if Zelensky is allowed to run amok with unilateral actions, thereby scuppering any prospect of an early settlement? With our long experience in diplomacy, why can we not think outside the box and engage with Trump’s people in discussions with Russia over measures to end this war? We cannot rely on Zelensky—he is out of control.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time do I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord. We have a long-standing commitment, which will remain for as long as it takes, to stand alongside Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a responsibility and a duty to the people of Ukraine, many of whom are living here with us still, and we are very pleased to welcome them.
I completely reject the noble Lord’s analysis of the events he referred to, as do my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We speak all the time to our friends and allies in the United States about this. President Trump wants to see peace, we want to see peace, and President Zelensky has agreed to a ceasefire. The person who could achieve that ceasefire, who could bring peace to Ukraine and who could see the children returned to their homes is President Putin.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, from these Benches, I completely agree with the Minister’s sentiments. I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is absolutely wrong, and all of us who are strong supporters of Ukraine were greatly encouraged by the recent audacious attack on the Russian airfields—in which nobody was killed, by the way; it was just equipment that was damaged.
To secure Ukrainian sovereignty in the longer term, it is vital that Ukraine possesses armed forces which have a strong, strategic and tactical advantage in the region. So, I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the steps that the Government are taking to support the Ukrainian military to ensure that it has troops that are well trained and well equipped in the longer term, to a high standard, to help deter further Russian aggression.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will continue to provide the £3 billion a year to Ukraine for as long as it is needed. Future defence and security co-operation is included in the 100-year partnership, and we have the coalition of the willing initiative as well, which is specifically designed to provide security assurance to Ukraine as we move forward, hopefully soon after the establishment of a ceasefire.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed any reticence or reluctance on the part of President Putin to killing Ukrainian civilians while so-called peace talks continue? Has she identified any actions at all on the part of the American Administration to try to compel President Putin down that path of reticence?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not noticed any reticence on behalf of the Russian leader in that regard. I repeat that we talk frequently and in great detail about how we work together with our friends and allies, including the United States, to bring about peace.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we associate ourselves highly with the Minister’s initial response. One of the reasons why Ukraine will require long-term reassurance with security is the way they see their prisoners of war being brutalised, abused and mistreated in Russia. My noble friend Lady Suttie and I met with the leadership of the Ukrainian prisoner of war authority just before the Recess, and we were briefed on the horrendous treatment that is being applied to them, including the denial of human rights and Red Cross access. Will the Minister agree with me that the time is right now to send a very strong signal, by sanctioning those authorities in Russia that are denying the prisoners of war their very basic human rights?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First of all, I thank the noble Lord for the commitment that he and his party have shown to Ukraine. It is pleasing that he is taking part in the meetings that he has described. One of the things that encourages us all is the united way in which we in this House and across politics in this country and elsewhere are able to stand together on these issues.
On the issue of sanctions, he is always keen to encourage us to go further. He knows that I will not be commenting on the specific request that he has made, but I thank him for always continuing to push the Government to do more and go further and faster on sanctions, and I hope he can see that we respond whenever we can to that encouragement.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, how effective can security guarantees be without some form of US participation? It is surely not a strong argument to say that some US personnel will be involved in mining their minerals, so what is the current position of the US Administration?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right that US involvement in the security guarantees is going to be essential. We continue to talk about this with our friends and allies in the US.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it may be unpopular, but the Russians do actually believe they have a case. If we are going to get peace, we have to get a neutral arbiter in there to try to start negotiations. The word that is missing is “Europe”. What are the Government doing to call together our European allies in the European Union to try to move forward towards a constructive dialogue that could lead to some peace?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not known the noble Lord for all that long, but I do not think that being popular is something that he troubles himself about too much when he makes his positions known, and I respect that. The territorial integrity of Ukraine and the extent to which that forms part of any negotiated outcome needs to be the result of a negotiation that has Ukraine at the centre of it, and it is not actually for us to tell Ukraine what it needs to accept by way of outcome, or to make points about Russia’s right, or otherwise. Russia has invaded Ukraine; it was wrong that it did that. It could bring about peace and begin negotiations now; it is choosing not to do that. So, as the noble Lord says, we will work with our friends in the European Union to support any efforts that we can to bring that about.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I am strongly committed to Europe—we set up Cambridge for Europe together. However, I wonder what the Minister thinks the message would be to our friends and partners in eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic states and Poland, if we were somehow to turn away from Ukraine or send a message from this place that we are somehow not united—because we need to be united.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point, and it is important that we remind ourselves about this. That counts for now, and it also counts after any ceasefire is achieved. We need to remember that Russia instigated this and, if we allow this to go unchecked or for there to be any kind of reward for this aggression, we cannot be confident that this would be the last time that we would see this kind of action from Russia.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the initial reply the Minister gave to the House, she rightly referred to those children who have been abducted from Ukraine. Yesterday, the envoy for missing children pointed out that the technology that is used to track more than 30,000 of those children expires this month with the ending of funding from USAID. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that the funding does not end, and what are we doing to ensure that the special tribunal to bring to justice those responsible for the abduction of children goes ahead?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What has happened to those children is abhorrent, and they should be returned immediately. My understanding is that the Ukrainians have now issued a list of names to the Russians, to enable them to be returned immediately. I will look into the issue of the funding for the technology—that is very important. I do not have an answer for the noble Lord now, but I will find out and write to him, and I will share that with other noble Lords, who I know have a keen interest in this—and I am pleased that they do.
Primary and Community Care
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hacking
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support primary and community care settings to integrate in vitro point of care diagnostics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise the value of point-of-care diagnostics in enabling earlier detection, reducing avoidable hospital admissions and supporting more personalised care. As part of our 10-year plan, we will ensure that more tests, including in vitro point-of-care diagnostics, take place in the community, which will be closer to people’s homes. Use of in vitro point-of-care testing is encouraged where clinically appropriate, including in community diagnostic centres, and is supported by the development of 27 pathology networks.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very positive reply, but I will take it a little further. Do the Government appreciate the enormous potential benefit of in vitro diagnosis for the National Health Service and patients? On the latter, patients would be able to go to their local pharmacy, away from the queues in their GP surgery or local A&E department, and be diagnosed and treated in a matter of minutes. My second question is: what government funding support will be given to pharmacies having to buy the diagnostic machines or boxes, which cost about £2,000 each, and to support the necessary training for pharmacy staff?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is a good news story, and I certainly share my noble friend’s view of the benefits that he outlined. Community diagnostic centres are now delivering additional tests and checks in 169 sites across the country. They have delivered almost 4.5 million tests, checks and scans since last July, and we have committed to expanding the number of existing CDCs and their opening times. In England, Pharmacy First clinical pathways have been developed closely with various experts, including pharmacists. The funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework has been increased to over £3 billion, representing the largest uplift in funding of any part of the NHS. We are grateful for the role that pharmacies play.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when we discuss in vitro testing, we should also talk about in vivo testing? That involves taking a history and doing a thorough physical examination of the patient on the spot, but it seems to be going out of fashion. I will illustrate that with the story of a member of staff who had consulted me. He had been investigated at the “St. Elsewhere” hospital for six months, but they had missed the fact that he had ruptured his Achilles tendon. I did an in vivo spot diagnosis. I put my index finger down his Achilles tendon—with his permission, of course—and I could feel the gap in his Achilles tendon where it had ruptured. They had not examined him. Is it not time that we did this inexpensive business of taking a history and doing a thorough physical examination?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very glad that the noble Lord asked for permission. I take his point. I know that he understands the value of in vitro point-of-care testing, but he makes the good point that what matters is what is clinically appropriate in the circumstance. We would all expect that to happen for the benefit of the patient.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will follow on from the Minister’s Answer. While being supportive of the general trend, what metrics and measures have the Government put in place to ensure that those tests indeed create positive patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency to help future induction of the tests in the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We will ensure, through our 10-year health plan, that the additional tests, including in vitro point-of-care diagnostics, are taking place in the community. I look forward to being able to provide more information to the noble Lord.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government’s stated commitment to innovation in primary care and the commitment to continue the rollout of community diagnostic centres, which were started by the previous Government. However, unfortunately, last year the Patients Association highlighted barriers to the rollout of point-of-care diagnostics, particularly in rural areas. Is the Minister aware of those concerns, and what plans does the department have to tackle those barriers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Our commitment to moving towards a neighbourhood health service obviously allows for attention to be given to different circumstances, including in rural areas. It will mean that more care can be delivered locally and that problems can be spotted earlier, including any problems with rollout. We will shortly provide details of a national neighbourhood health implementation programme. We liaise with various groups, including the Patients Association, and I am grateful for their input and for flagging up any difficulties, which we absolutely seek to resolve.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, while I accept that in vitro diagnosis at the point of care has great benefits, it is important to address the challenges that we will need to face. They include quality control and the standardisation of equipment used, as well as making sure that the appropriate people are trained, that assessments are made of the results obtained and that proper, good outcomes are delivered. Who will be in charge of delivering this, at the integrated care board level and the national level, to make sure that it is effective?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that it is one thing to provide a service; it is another—and so important—to make sure that it is provided appropriately and accurately. ICBs will have their own arrangements. Within that, NHS England is currently responsible for ensuring that this takes place. We will ensure that there are regular updates. If any noble Lord is aware of particular difficulties, I would be very pleased to hear about them; for example, if there is a problem with quality control.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that even deeper and wider embedding of diagnostics across the NHS, including more in community pharmacists and GP surgeries, would help in the fight against not only antimicrobial resistance but other infectious diseases? In addition, it would stimulate the venture capital business in diagnostics. All these factors together have the potential to boost NHS productivity dramatically, and would therefore help to boost the country’s growth trend.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the very strong points that the noble Lord has made. This is obviously a health improvement policy for patients and to support the NHS, but it is also about developing growth and the opportunity for new ways of doing things. We welcome and support innovation.
Lord Markham (Con)
Building on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others, there are many examples where the ideal place to do a diagnostic test is in a primary care setting. Urinary tract infections are a typical example of that, because you can solve it quickly in that setting, avoiding future hospital visits and much pain and suffering. However, that means taking budgets away from secondary care settings and giving them to primary care GPs, pharmacists, et cetera. Are the Government prepared to do that to see these benefits arise?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are constantly reviewing how best to support where we need to go. In this case, it is about getting tests done closer to home. The noble Lord is right that, for a number of people, the GP practice is a good place to do that, but not in all cases. What matters is doing what is appropriate. We announced an £889 million uplift for general practice in 2025-26, which is the largest uplift to GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework in 2019, and we have also agreed a new GP contract. The noble Lord will be aware that we recently announced over £1 million to help the quality of the primary care estate, to ensure that we can provide some 11 million further appointments this year. While I accept that this issue is about configuration, I assure the noble Lord of our support for GPs.
Creon
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the shortage of Creon, a cancer medication, reported by the National Pharmacy Association, and what steps they plan to take to prevent similar shortages in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, while some supply constraints remain, predominantly with the higher-strength product, Creon stock is regularly being delivered to pharmacies. Alternative products and unlicensed imports are also available. Guidance has been issued to the NHS on prescribing available alternatives and utilising serious shortage protocols to limit quantities dispensed, with actions for integrated care boards to ensure that patients are not left without Creon or an alternative. We continue to work on the long-term supply resilience of Creon.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but there are some suggestions that pharmacies are struggling to obtain this important medication, which addresses pancreatic enzyme therapy. Given the struggles that pharmacies are facing, could my noble friend the Minister therefore outline what consideration has been given by the Government to provide a national plan to address shortages and to support patients with alternative care? What approval would be given to highly trained pharmacists to use their professional judgment to supply alternative medicines, where that is medically safe and appropriate, in the event of the prescribed version being unavailable to ensure that patients can enjoy longer, healthier lives?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can say to my noble friend that serious shortage protocols are a tool that we have and use to manage and mitigate medicine and medical devices shortages. They enable community pharmacists to supply a specified medicine or device in accordance with a protocol rather than a prescription, with the patient’s consent, without needing to seek authorisation from the prescriber. They are used in cases of serious shortage, and we develop those protocols with input from expert clinicians. In addition, we are currently examining options around pharmacists’ flexibilities, including how any risks could be managed, and further details will be set out on this. I hope this gives some reassurance to my noble friend.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we know that these unexpected shortages occur from time to time, and that this obviously causes patients to worry. As the Minister said, I understand the advice is that alternative therapies are available but may not be sufficient for all patients. Given this, can the Government reassure patients that they are confident that those who cannot turn to alternative therapies will be able to get the appropriate doses of Creon that they require? Also, do the Government have any idea, or have they been given any indication, of when they expect this particular shortage to end?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The supply situation has improved since last year and there is now sufficient stock of lower-strength Creon to meet normal demand. There are still some supply constraints, as I have said, with the higher-strength product stock, but stock is regularly being delivered to pharmacies. As we have discussed, alternative products and unlicensed imports are also available. I totally accept that patients may have concerns, and that is why we have worked closely to keep in communication with patients to assure them that they will not be going without the medication they need. For example, it may be that lower strength in multiple provision can be made, or there are the alternatives that I have described. If any noble Lords are aware of real-life examples of shortages, I would be grateful to hear about them, because we believe that we have made the arrangements, and I can reassure noble Lords that these very important medicines are being provided to those who need them.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I suggest that the Minister ask her officials immediately to speak to the National Pharmacy Association, which published a survey at the end of last month that said that 96% of community pharmacies were finding problems with getting stocks of Creon and 89% of community pharmacies were having problems with alternatives. In light of that and the bigger picture, what actions are the Government taking to establish new suppliers and manufacturers of enzyme replacement therapy to reduce reliance on a limited number of manufacturers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point, because the reality is that there are very limited manufacturers of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy—which applies to a number of people, not just those who have pancreatic cancer—so I do understand that point. It is the case that several non-UK suppliers have expressed an interest in bringing their products to the UK, and they are currently under review with the MHRA. Of course, I hope noble Lords are aware that this Government prioritise UK life sciences, and that is absolutely key. We have established incentives to encourage manufacture, including up to £520 million to support businesses that invest in life-science manufacturing products.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, may I put it to my noble friend the Minister that there is also an underlying problem, which was also revealed during COVID, that too often the end-use manufacturers are highly dependent on a supply chain that is often in countries that are either unreliable or, indeed, even hostile? These may seem to be basic supplies, but in fact they are enormously important for the final product. Should not the Government in this area, and indeed in others, be looking at this more seriously?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I believe that we are looking at this very seriously. Of course, medicine supply chains are complex, global and highly regulated, so there are a number of reasons why supply can be disrupted and a number of reasons why supply might not be specifically as we would like. Unfortunately, some of those are out of government control. To be honest, we cannot prevent all medicine shortages, but we can take as many steps as possible. I can assure my noble friend that the whole point about increasing resilience of the UK medicine supply chain remains a key priority. We work with industry, we work with the regulator and we will improve the position of the UK as a destination for life sciences and manufacturing in this regard.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to Creon being needed for a number of conditions. In Sheffield, when I was visiting POLARIS, the pulmonary lung and respiratory imaging centre, I met a mother of a cystic fibrosis patient—a young child, quite a small child—and that mother was suffering significant distress at having to spend time chasing around Sheffield to try to lay hands on Creon. The Minister just said that this is out of government control. Does she agree that this is a case where relying on markets to supply essential drugs is not working and that there needs to be more government control in the supply chain?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness puts forward an interesting perspective. There will always be a number of matters that are outside any Government’s control. What is in the Government’s control is what action we can take. In terms of alternatives to Creon, for example, supplies of Nutrizym have more than doubled since last year, and Essential Pharma has also secured additional manufacturing capacity for Pancrex. In May last year, pancreatin preparations—the active ingredient in the medicine we are talking about—were added to the list of medicines that cannot be exported from the UK or hoarded in order to reserve supplies. These actions, along with some of the ones that I have just mentioned and more, all show a very active government position.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, since we have a bit of time, perhaps I may be allowed a supplementary. Given that part of the answer is to import unlicensed medicines, what quality-control procedures are there in place to ensure that people can be reassured that these unlicensed medicines are suitable and fit for patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It would not be possible to prescribe them if they were not fit and safe for use. I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to make that reassurance. There is very clear information on ordering and prescribing unlicensed imports on the NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service website, should the noble Lord or any other person wish to be reassured of what that means.
Regional Growth
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Statement given in the other place yesterday made many references to the benefits of growth, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury could hardly contain his excitement when he said that increases in regional productivity could grow the economy significantly. We on this side of the House would of course welcome the prospect of economic growth. However, although the Statement mentioned “growth” nine times, there was little to no detail on how these proposals would in fact boost our economy.
One vital question is whether this level of investment—if it is in fact new money—will require an increase in taxation, given that national debt is already at around 100% of GDP. As we know from the country’s experiences with inheritance tax and the NICs hike, tax rises are bad for growth and bad for our economy. I hope that the Minister can provide the House with some clarity on this question. Can he confirm to the House what the net figure is for the projected cumulative impact of this policy on British economic growth by the end of the Parliament? Can he assure the House that this policy will not be met through any new or increased taxes?
This Statement also gives me a sense of déjà vu, because the measures announced are incredibly similar in scale and form to the funding announcements made by the previous Government under the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements in 2023. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the West Midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the West Midlands. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; now, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion. Indeed, much of this investment touted by the Government appears to have been recycled—money already announced in different forms under previous schemes and now repackaged. This needs careful examination. Perhaps the Minister could help us here with an honest assessment.
The Government quote the Green Book, which they are revising to give more opportunity for projects outside the south-east—so a change in the way value for money is approached. Given that this has already been briefed to the media, what are the key features here and have the projects announced yesterday been assessed on the old or the new basis? How will the rules be honed to avoid Whitehall-inspired or ministerially-inspired white elephants?
I had the honour of chairing the Built Environment Committee, with many from across the House, and leading its work in 2022 on Public Transport in Towns and Cities. We found that nearly two-thirds of journeys on public transport were by bus. What do the Government’s plans do for bus funding? I am less interested today in the rapid bus routes planned for Liverpool than in basic bus services that so many people take to work, especially when they live outside our cities and commute. The Government have increased the maximum £2 fare that we introduced and have not guaranteed its long-term future.
The committee also found that light rail schemes—basically, trams—are very expensive but that very light rail systems such as that in Coventry, and bus rapid transit schemes, had more potential and needed to be assessed and compared. What have the Government concluded about the balance here, and how is that reflected in yesterday’s package?
We support infrastructure investment when it is targeted, timely and impactful. But what we heard from the Chancellor and Chief Secretary yesterday was less of a plan and more of a press release. The funding, spread over nearly a decade, will not begin in earnest until 2027. That is two years from now before the money leaves the Treasury. For communities in the Midlands and the north, this will sound like delay dressed up as action.
Can the Minister confirm when we will see the effect of this policy reflected in regional and national growth and productivity rates? Can he assure the House that businesses in the areas identified will see a tangible improvement in their day-to-day operations as a result of these spending decisions? After all, it is business, not government, that is more productive and the main driver of growth.
The noble Lord and I agree on the importance of productivity growth. However, to achieve the £86 billion productivity improvement in cities cited in the Statement requires much more than this largely welcome transport investment. We need a revolution in skills, innovation, digitalisation and public sector efficiency, and to solve the problem of uncompetitive electricity prices crippling our industries, especially in the very regions we are talking about today.
Finally, I must raise a note of caution on the fiscal front. At a time of considerable pressure on the public finances, we must be clear-eyed about priorities. A commitment of this scale, without clear delivery mechanisms or clarity on the projected economic returns, risks becoming a drain rather than a driver. Transport investment must support productivity, growth, and value for money. It must not become an uncosted political gesture, reliant on anti-growth decisions such as tax hikes. It is incumbent on the Government to be responsible in the steps that they take, so I look forward to the noble Lord’s answers today and to next week’s spending review, when we will return to some of these issues.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The Liberal Democrat Benches fully support measures to grow our economy across every nation and every region. We therefore welcome this Statement detailing planned investment in public transport and infrastructure. It is good to see not just plans but the money set aside for some city regions, giving long-term transport financial settlements. Frankly, that is the only sensible way to ensure investment in transport infrastructure, rather than the constant stop-start begging-bowl approach we saw with the previous Government, which benefits no one and delivers nothing. For too long, communities have heard promises only, to be left with phantom transport networks, so investment in transport infrastructure is vital if we are to grow our economy and create access to jobs across the country.
In particular, we are very pleased to see the Metrolink to Stockport in this announcement, which is testimony to the hard work of the local Liberal Democrats, who have been campaigning and working on this issue for many years—indeed, long before the mayor and the combined authority were created. However, we have a number of questions. It seems that areas without mayors are being left behind or ignored. Where is the plan and money for rural areas? There are parts of the south-west, for example, which would benefit hugely from transport infrastructure investment, yet this area has been ignored in this Statement. It feels as though Bristol is as far west as the Government can see.
Whether it is Cumbria, Shropshire, Norfolk, Devon or Cornwall, there is nothing in this Statement for them, so what plans do the Government have for a rural growth strategy? What funding is planned for our railways as they come under public ownership? There is a desperate need for major investment across the network to enable more frequent trains to serve our communities. Will there be a railway investment plan? Will the Mayor of London and Transport for London be allocated further funding to maintain and grow the capital’s transport system, creating jobs across the country?
The cost of fares is a real barrier to many people. What plans are there to reduce fares—in particular, to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap—and to reform rail fares to make them affordable for passengers? Alongside the investment in infrastructure, there is the challenge of the skills and workforce issues. What plans do the Government have to ensure that we have the skilled and trained workforce to build this transport infrastructure, including fixing the apprenticeship levy? This is a welcome first step, but key questions need to be answered to ensure that every area can grow and prosper.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Pidgeon, for their questions, and I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to her place and look forward to speaking with her in many more of these debates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked a number of questions. She started by asking about growth. I noticed that she did not mention that, in this quarter, the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I noticed that she did not mention that our growth forecasts have just been upgraded by the IMF. I noticed that she did not mention that, in many business surveys, business confidence is now at its highest level for many years. I hope that, when she talks about growth, she will always give a rounded picture of where we are on growth.
She asked whether these measures will contribute to regional growth, and yes, of course they will: that is the whole point of them. For too long, we have relied on just one part of the country to generate economic growth. We need to make sure that more parts of our country are contributing to growth and more people throughout our country are feeling the benefits of that growth. That is absolutely why we are doing what we are. It is why we started with connectivity: because we know that connecting city regions is incredibly important, enabling more people to travel to work, connecting labour markets and connecting businesses to more places so that they can sell more goods to more people. That is absolutely central to what we set out yesterday. The answer to the question, “Will this contribute to growth?” is: yes it absolutely will. We saw in the Spring Statement the OBR, for example, scoring for the first time some of our growth measures, and of course we hope that it will continue to score our growth measures going forward.
She asked: is this new money? Absolutely, yes—yesterday, we announced £15 billion of new money. It is the biggest ever investment by any British Government in our regional transport network. As a result of the fiscal rules and the difficult decisions that we have taken, we are in the spending review increasing the overall amount of spending by £300 billion: £190 billion on day-to-day spending and an increase of £113 billion on capital spending. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, welcomed—slightly half-heartedly—what we announced yesterday. It is notable that she welcomed the additional spending, but she has at no point welcomed any of the difficult measures we have taken to raise that money so that we can spend it on the things that she is now welcoming. I think that her shadow Chancellor is today making a speech where he is seeking to distance himself from the Liz Truss approach from the previous Parliament. Yet it seems to me that the party opposite is repeating exactly the same mistakes of the Liz Truss mini-Budget of spending money that it does not have. I think that is a huge risk going forward. As I say, she has welcomed this spending, but she has opposed every single measure we have taken to raise the money to fund it. She asks: will this policy require any additional taxes? No, because we have already raised the taxes in the last Budget—£40 billion—to enable us to spend this money for the rest of this Parliament. So yes, these measures will be met within the envelope that was set at the last Budget.
The noble Baroness said that these are the same measures as the previous Government announced. She kept using the phrase, “We promised”. I think that is a really important phrase because, yes, the previous Government did promise many things, but they did not put a single penny of funding behind any of the promises made. The big difference between what we are doing now, what the Chancellor announced yesterday, and what the previous Government announced, was that they made lots and lots of promises that they never funded—not with a single penny of funding. She will have heard me refer to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is exactly why that black hole occurred. What we announced yesterday was real funding for real measures going forward. That is the big, fundamental difference. She asked for an honest assessment, and I think I would call for some honesty from her too that the previous Government did not fund any of those promises.
She asked about the Green Book. We have set out that the Green Book was used by previous Governments against regional authorities and local mayors as a reason not to invest outside London and the south-east. We have changed that methodology. We will set out in the spending review next week the full details of that review, and I look forward to discussing the full details of that with her.
She said that funding would not be seen for two years from now. Of course, there was no funding seen under the last Government at all, so of course we have to start somewhere and we have to get the money out of the door—she is absolutely right. But spades will be in the ground in this Parliament, and we absolutely confirm that.
She asked: will we see improvements for business? Yes, it is absolutely the purpose of this announcement to connect businesses to more areas. It is why local transport networks are so vital and why we have started where we are. She talked about the fiscal front, and I completely agree with her. Of course there are increasing pressures, but that is why I say to her that we must not make promises that we cannot afford. The previous Government did exactly that; we will not make that mistake.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her welcome for the long-term nature of these announcements, and it is obviously great that national government is working with local government and local government leaders to deliver on these promises. She called it a welcome first step, and I would agree exactly with that sentiment. We were very clear about what we were and were not announcing yesterday. Yesterday, we were announcing the connectivity of city regions, so of course this focused on certain city regions. Next week, we will set out in the spending review the entire regional plan for growth: for the rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is what we will do, but yesterday we were talking purely about the connectivity of city regions, and we were putting the transport connectivity first, because we know that that is the essential underpinning for so much else in our growth strategy.
She touched on a number of other things that are important to growth. She talked about skills, for example. I completely agree with her when it comes to skills. We will be setting out in the spending review, and then in the industrial strategy in the weeks following the spending review, the measures that we are taking. She talked about having the workforce to build this transport infrastructure. Absolutely: I completely agree with her on that point. She asked about funding for railways, the rest of the country and regional plans, and about the Mayor of London, et cetera. All those questions will be addressed in the spending review next week, and I look forward to discussing that with her and other noble Lords next week.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement on connectivity across England, and I welcome the noble Lord’s commentary in relation to the spending review next week, particularly in relation to the connectivity of the different parts of the United Kingdom. He will know that I have mentioned the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on union connectivity many times, and I urge the Minister and his colleagues to look at that report again, particularly in relation to the A75 in Scotland, which is very important for people and businesses travelling from Northern Ireland to England, because that road really needs an upgrade. I commend the Government for taking this initiative. I really believe in capital investment leading to economic growth, and I think that connectivity will be very much helped by that. I urge him to look at that connectivity review and to link up the rest of the Kingdom as well.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and the points that she makes. I think we would agree with a lot of what she says. She is supporting the importance of connectivity underlying much of our growth mission. That is obviously what we were starting to set out yesterday—as I say, just in the city regions for now, but next week, in the spending review, in the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot comment on the specific road that she mentions ahead of that spending review, but of course I will take away what she says about that report and very much support what she says about connectivity.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Does the Minister accept that a key step in overcoming regional economic disparities is the mobilisation of the full labour force and, in particular, bringing into worthwhile employment young people who are fit to work and not in full-time education or training? What progress has been made to overcome regional disparities in that regard?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with the noble Lord in what he says about bringing people in. We have far too many people inactive in our labour market. I think we are the only country in the G7 where inactivity rates have not returned to where they were prior to the pandemic, for example. At a time when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, mentioned, we need the workforce there to build this infrastructure, there are far too many people who are currently inactive, and it is a huge waste of potential. We have started, with the welfare reforms that we have set out, to get more people back into the labour market. There will be more detail in the spending review next week, or perhaps following the spending review, on the settlement that the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions will be receiving to ensure that we get more of those people who are not in education or training back into the workforce.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Pidgeon I support the announcement from the Government. I also support her call for the reinstatement of the £2 bus fare cap.
I listened with interest to the Minister’s comment about connectivity in city regions. I want to press him regarding South Yorkshire. I welcome the tram renewal. However, in addition to tram renewals, did the ask from the regional mayor include tram extensions? The Supertram system in Sheffield has been in place since the early 1990s, albeit that a small extension from Meadowhall in Sheffield to Rotherham was done during the coalition years. Was a tram extension asked for?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for what we have set out and for connectivity in general. We announced £1.5 billion for South Yorkshire, to support the reopening of Doncaster Airport and to renew the existing and now publicly controlled Supertram network with track replacements, overhead line maintenance, rolling stock renewal and a full fleet of new vehicles by 2032, linking jobs and homes in Sheffield and Rotherham. It was also to reform South Yorkshire’s buses—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is keen on buses—with franchise buses operating in Sheffield, Doncaster and Rotherham by 2027 and across South Yorkshire by 2029.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am curious about the relationship between the timing of this announcement and the review of the Green Book. The figures announced today are practically the same as those promised by the Conservative Government a year ago. We are expecting from the Government a review of the Green Book which is meant to tilt investment further towards the city regions outside London. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his Statement yesterday that the Green Book review will be published next week. Why have the Government rushed out these figures, which are clearly based on the existing Green Book and the Conservatives’ financial methodology? Would the city regions not have benefited more had the Chief Secretary waited until after next week’s announcement, when the new Green Book—we do not know what it will contain yet—is in place?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, that is not the case at all. The noble Lord refers to promises made by the previous Government, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also referred to. Promises were made. Let us be clear: not a single penny was allocated by the previous Government to a single promise that they made. The noble Lord can compare what this Government are doing with what the previous Government did, but this Government are putting money towards those announcements.
The noble Lord then said that announcements were—in his bizarre phrase—“rushed out”. Making announcements is not rushing anything out. It is setting out very clearly what our policy is for the connectivity of the city regions. We will publish the review of the Green Book next week. That will make sure that, in future, additional investment is not biased towards any one region but that the entirety of the country is considered when it comes to those announcements. That makes perfect sense. I do not recognise the analysis that the noble Lord is putting forward.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s announcements in relation to regional growth. As the sometime author of the Green Book, I welcome the direction of travel in terms of investment appraisal. However, inevitably, resources are finite. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the Government are prioritising those projects with the greatest economic return? Does he agree that the private sector also has a critical role in delivering regional growth? Can he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to sound public finances, the better to bear down on the cost of borrowing?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord’s points. He asks about the Green Book. He has much more experience in this matter than I do. We have set out—and I hope that he agrees—that for too long the guidance in the Green Book has been biased against certain parts of the country. We want to address that. On whether we will prioritise the spending on where it has the greatest return, yes, this is key to the methodology that the Green Book sets out. The Green Book reinforced investment in areas that were already successful. It did not necessarily enable investment in areas where there was a high degree of potential. That is what we want to do. By investing in areas of high potential, there will be huge returns. We have already set this out. There could be a potential increase of about 3% of GVA if we can get the city regions up to the average productivity of the country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. That is the intention and why we are doing what we are doing.
The noble Lord talked about the importance of fiscal responsibility. He will know that this Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Restoring fiscal responsibility is the central driving purpose of the stability pillar of our growth mission. We have set out very clear fiscal rules that require no borrowing for day-to-day spending, unlike the previous Government, who had that £22 billion black hole in their day-to-day spending. We have repaired that. At the first opportunity, when the fiscal rules were tested at the Spring Statement, we repaired the headroom against the fiscal rules in full to what it was before. We have set out very clear fiscal rules. We will stick to them, and everything that we set out in the spending review next week will be shown to be fully funded and fully in line with the fiscal rules.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the proposals. I remind the Minister that the Leeds tram scheme was cancelled by the last Labour Government in 2009, so it is very good to see it coming back 26 years later.
I note that the Statement says that modern growth
“relies on dynamic, interconnected city regions”.
I live on the outskirts of Bradford, the largest city in Britain without a mainline station. I am conscious that the lack of a decent trans-Pennine link and the overcrowding of the existing rail links between Leeds and Manchester is a huge problem for interconnection between three potentially vital regions of Britain—West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. I remind the Minister that a new trans-Pennine rail link, Northern Powerhouse Rail, was talked about, planned and proposed, on and off, throughout the last Government. We need to make something which will be transformative for the entire north of England.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support and for what he says. He knows much more about that region than I do. He will know that in the previous Budget, we funded the trans-Pennine upgrade for the work that was under way. We gave a further £2.1 billion investment for West Yorkshire yesterday, which will deliver for the West Yorkshire mass transit system, linking up Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale, Wakefield, Pudsey and Leeds. I hope that goes some way towards what he is asking for. There will be further transport announcements in the spending review next week. I look forward to debating those then.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I must apologise to the House and my noble friend the Minister for being a couple of minutes late for the start of the Statement. I hope that the House will forgive me; it is the first time that I have done that.
I want to ask the Minister about the east Midlands. We have felt very left out over many years in that important part of England, but I was delighted by yesterday’s announcement as it affects transport links between the two great cities of Nottingham and Derby. That is a great plus which we are very pleased about. Now for my slight gripe: I spring from Leicestershire, and we are feeling slightly left out, not from yesterday’s announcements but because, generally, Governments, and particularly the previous one, have failed to do anything to help in this way in the east Midlands and around Leicester in particular. Can the Minister and his colleagues consider that when future decisions are made?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend. Even though he was late, I was very happy for him to contribute when he was welcoming what we have done, for which I am grateful; I was less keen once he started with his gripe. We have pledged £2 billion of additional investment in the East Midlands to develop the Trent Arc, linking Derby and Nottingham to create tens of thousands of new jobs and homes, and to connect Infinity Park Investment zone and the East Midlands Freeport with sites including Ratcliffe-on-Soar clean energy and advanced manufacturing and East Midlands Intermodal Park—home of Toyota in the region. I absolutely hear what he says about Leicester; I will take that back and hopefully will have more good news for him in the spending review next week.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that some of these announcements sound familiar—that is why I welcome them—but I was concerned that the Ely Junction upgrade was not mentioned. I hope for better news later next week. The Minister referred to the Green Book. I am very interested in this, because it was changed in December 2020 specifically to make sure that the Government’s strategic priorities—of which growth around the country was one—meant that a project’s BCR could be lower than for other projects, but that it would still be awarded and could go ahead.
Based on what the Minister has said, I am just wondering what further changes are going to be made in the Green Book on the back of the changes that have already happened, which have meant that projects could be deployed—that is why so many of these projects were announced two years ago. I would be grateful if he could explain this further. He talks about black holes and the like; of course, he knows that the OBR does not agree with that assessment. I would also be grateful if he could clarify the spending announcement, because he said that this would be new money. Is that on top of the £36 billion announced two years ago for many of the projects that were re-announced yesterday?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness has asked a number of questions. When she stood up, I was hoping she was going to defend the Liz Truss mini-Budget that her party is trying to distance itself from today. I was disappointed that she did not do that. She did try to defend the £22 billion black hole, which is almost as enjoyable as defending the Liz Truss mini-Budget, and she will know that that is what we inherited.
The noble Baroness talked about re-announcements made yesterday. I will just make this point again: they are not re-announcements if actual money is put behind them. The previous Government announced many things and made lots of promises—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, used the word “promises” lots of times—but they did not put a single penny behind any of those things. Not one penny or pound of any of those announcements was ever funded. We are now funding those announcements, so it is a very different situation.
The noble Baroness asked about the Green Book. As she knows, the Treasury Green Book sets out the guidance for public servants on how to assess the value for money of Government projects. We have heard from many regional mayors that previous Governments wielded the Green Book against them as an excuse to deny important investment in their areas. That is why in January the Chancellor ordered a review of the Green Book and its use to make sure that this Government give every region a fair hearing on investment. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the Green Book is being used to provide Ministers with fair, objective and transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside London and the south-east of England. We will publish the full conclusions of that review next week alongside the spending review.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, having just heard what the Minister said about the various regions, may I ask him what, if anything, will happen further west than Bristol?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I tried to address that in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Yesterday we talked about interconnectivity within the city regions. We will be announcing the full regional transport plan and regional growth plan for the whole of the country—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—next week in the spending review.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, one way you can tell that I am a Treasury nerd is that I am really looking forward to the Green Book review being announced next week, and I welcome what my noble friend has said about that today. There are many problems with the way the Treasury has, historically, allocated money for long-term investment. One is the regional bias that we have discussed today, but another is that capital budgets are allocated for short periods with an incentive to spend them by the end of a three-year cycle, whether it is appropriate or not for the project. Does the Treasury still intend to move towards longer-term capital budgeting, and will we hear something about that next week in the spending review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question and for his expertise in this matter. He is right on capital budgets, with which, historically, there have been two problems. The previous Government’s fiscal rules did not prioritise capital investment, so when they had holes in their day-to-day spending plans, they would raid the capital budget to top up them up. That is why we have seen the infrastructure of our country deteriorate over the past 14 years. This Government’s fiscal rules ensure that we do not cannibalise those investment budgets to fund day-to-day spending. That is incredibly important, and it is why we have this £113 billion of extra capital spending to announce in the spending review. My noble friend is also absolutely right about the short-term nature of those capital budgets. Yes, three years is probably too short a planning horizon, which is why we will be announcing five-year capital budgets in the spending review.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of this important Statement. I was on the Social Mobility Committee, which is related to regional growth. As an MP, I represented the new town of Runcorn, and I was interested to see that the proposed new towns are in Essex, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, Bristol, Wiltshire, Warwickshire and North and South Yorkshire. There is no mention of the north-west or north-east of England. That is quite concerning when we look to achieving the growth we want to see in all the regions of our country. Can the Minister update the House on whether there are any proposals for new towns in the West Midlands and the north-west and north-east of England?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will have to check with my colleagues in MHCLG on that point, and I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord to answer it. On growth plans for the rest of England—and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—outside of the city regions that we announced yesterday, there will be much more to say in the spending review next week, but I will write to him on this point.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome yesterday’s Statement. London is grinding to a halt while, hopefully, we are seeing the rest of the country improve its communications. The Mayor has recently made announcements about changes to the congestion charge. I know this is not my noble friend’s direct area of responsibility, but should we not review the possibility of extending the congestion charge to the western part of London? We are grinding to a halt, and it is time we did something fundamental to stop it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think that may be a question for the Mayor of London.
Employment Rights Bill
Thursday 5th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VII(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (4 Jun 2025)
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(A1) After section 5(1)(ec) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, insert—“(ed) requiring employment businesses participating in employment arrangements to be subject to a licensing authority nominated by the Secretary of State.””
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin this Committee day on the Employment Rights Bill. This is probably the most straightforward of the amendments I have on the Order Paper this afternoon; it simply seeks to bring clarity, consistency and fairness to this whole area. What does the amendment do? It simply states that employment businesses participating in employment arrangements must be subject to a licensing authority.
The fairness this brings is across both employment businesses that operate in this country and those that may be outside this country but involved in employment arrangements in this country; thus a licensing authority would bring them into the same regime as businesses in this country. It also reflects the situation in other sectors of the economy, so it has an element of consistency and is thus easily understandable to people who come to this from other domains within our economy. It is simply a question of clarity, consistency and fairness in employment businesses. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am quite concerned about this amendment, although I rarely disagree with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I am just concerned about the number of agencies or government bodies that keep being created. We already have considerable regulation in this country; I am not convinced that this will add value. Although I recognise the reasons why my noble friend put this forward, I hope he might reconsider tabling it again on Report, if he was so minded.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how pleased we are to see my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his place. I had the privilege of moving his previous amendments in his absence, but we are delighted to see him back with us and I thank him for proposing this important amendment.
The way my noble friend did it was very welcome because, at the heart of his speech, was a recognition that the labour market—especially the supply of temporary and agency workers—has to be fair and transparent. He used those particular words and stressed their importance. I agree with him that it is essential that all companies involved in these arrangements operate under the same clear set of rules. Too often, we see instances where umbrella companies or certain intermediaries do not meet the standards expected of traditional employment agencies, whether on pay, workers’ rights or transparency. This inconsistency undermines the integrity of the labour market and can put vulnerable workers at risk. Licensing could, in theory, help address this by ensuring that any business participating in employment arrangements meets minimum standards and is subject to proper oversight.
However, as my noble friend Lady Coffey stressed, the amendment raises some other important questions. Clause 34 broadens the definition of “employment business” to encompass a range of activities connected to supplying workers who are employed by one party but work under the control of another. This means that the regulatory net will be set much wider than before, potentially to cover businesses beyond traditional recruitment agencies.
Moreover, it is worth considering whether the same objectives could be achieved through improved enforcement of existing regulations rather than by introducing a new licensing framework. In this Chamber, we have to weigh carefully the costs and benefits, particularly to smaller businesses that may struggle with additional compliance burdens. We must also consider the impact on businesses and the wider economy. Many employment businesses operate with tight margins; for them, licensing means added costs, added paperwork and longer lead times to launch new services or respond to labour demand.
This is not an argument against regulation per se; it is simply a recognition that badly designed or poorly phased licensing can create barriers to entry, reduce competition and even push some providers underground, where abuses are harder to detect. In sectors that are already experiencing labour shortages, such as social care, hospitality and logistics, the cumulative impact could be significant.
As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, there is also the risk of regulatory duplication or conflict. Some sectors already have licensing or registration schemes; others are subject to sector-specific standards set by Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission or the Financial Conduct Authority. Without co-ordination, we risk creating overlapping regimes, with businesses subject to multiple audits, rival codes of conduct and inconsistent enforcement. Workers too may be confused about their rights and the mechanisms available for redress.
I also note that the amendment does not contain any provisions for parliamentary oversight or consultation. The power it seeks to create is broad and, while it is subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, it is not constrained by any statutory duty to consult stakeholders. In a sector as economically important and socially sensitive as this, there must be consultation. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his amendment concerning the licensing of employment businesses. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in saying how nice it is to see him in his place this afternoon. I share the privilege that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, noted as I responded to the amendments that were tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and these were on important issues that he was right to raise. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, these are around fairness, transparency, equity and the problems that some less than scrupulous umbrella organisations and employment agencies currently raise in the market. He is not raising unimportant issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already noted, through Clause 34, the Government have sought to amend the definition of “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, so that it includes the concept of employment arrangements. This expanded definition will capture so-called umbrella companies and place them in the scope of regulation. As your Lordships know, employment businesses are subject to regulation through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which were enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and subsequently will be enforced by the new fair work agency that Part 5 of the Bill creates.
The Government acknowledge that the current regulations are not appropriate for application to umbrella companies so, following consultation, we will set out a new regulatory framework that will apply to umbrella companies. In our view, these regulations are the most proportionate way of reducing non-compliance in the umbrella company market, without introducing a new regime that would add complexity for business. The creation of a licensing authority at this time would therefore not be appropriate. I am happy to say that on this rare occasion, we share the concerns of both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, from whom we heard earlier on this amendment.
The regulation-making powers in the Bill have been carefully considered and included only where the Government consider it justified and necessary. We are not convinced that the amendment will provide additional benefits for businesses or workers significant enough to expand this power, as it proposes.
The Government want to take care to get the regulations right. We have heard throughout our wonderful time spent discussing the Bill in Committee so far that there is a balance to be sought between the burdens that we create through new legislation and regulation on businesses, including small businesses, and protecting the rights of workers. It is a balance we get right, and we want to make sure that we get regulations right in relation to the new definition of employment businesses in this case. Our focus will be on that, alongside the establishment of the fair work agency.
Taking all these factors into consideration, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble lords who contributed to this short debate. I listened very carefully to the Minister, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for his comments. His drafting pen is always both sharper and smarter than mine, and we all benefit from that. I thank him for moving my amendment on Monday in my absence, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for doing so on a previous group. I accept the comments at this stage and am very keen to see what might be possible between now and Report. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Definition of AI System(1) For the purposes of this Act, “AI System” means an engineered or machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as content, predictions, forecasts, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. (2) AI systems may operate with varying degrees of autonomy and include use of algorithmic techniques such as natural language processing, large language models, multi-modal models, machine learning, speech or image recognition, neural networks, deep learning, or decision trees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of an AI System within the context of employment rights as an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, first of all, I must make my apologies that this is my first contribution to the Bill. I have waited until day 7—I am not quite sure that that is entirely my fault—but it is a pleasure to speak in this group, particularly as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on the same page, even if he has put forward a different set of amendments.
In moving Amendment 148, I will also speak to Amendments 149 and 150. I hope that these amendments are of interest to the Committee; they are certainly close to my heart. They address the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. Reports by the Institute for the Future of Work and the All-Party Group on the Future of Work paint a clear picture: the wide spread of AI at work is transforming lives and livelihoods in ways that have plainly outpaced or avoid the existing regimes per regulation. The impact of AI will be profound and, although there are potential benefits, there are also significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace. We must make sure that AI benefits are realised but also that the detriment is avoided.
As the All-Party Group on the Future of Work found, there is an urgent need to bring forward robust proposals to protect people and safeguard our fundamental values in the workplace. Existing regulatory frameworks are strained. Technical approaches commonly deployed before deployment of algorithmic systems are often inadequate. That is why a systematic framework for accountability is urgently required.
The workplace AI risk and impact assessments—WAIRIAs, as we have coined them—proposed by these amendments, are intended to provide such a framework. As the Institute for the Future of Work and others have argued, mandating such regimes of impact assessment is a practical response to a deficit of responsible foresight.
It is important for WAIRIAs to be made a legal requirement and for accompanying guidance to be issued to outline a framework. Amendment 148 defines what constitutes an “AI System” in this context as:
“an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques”.
That very clear definition ensures we are all addressing the same technology when discussing its regulation.
Amendment 149 introduces the cornerstone requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment mandates that:
“Before implementing or developing an AI system which may have significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace, an employer must conduct a workplace AI risk and impact assessment”.
The rationale for this is crucial. AI systems can have a potential significant risk or impact on areas vital to workers, including:
“the identification or exercise of rights … work access or allocation … remuneration or benefits … contractual status, terms or conditions …”
and even
“mental, physical or psychosocial health”.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. It is a pleasure to follow him because this has always been his “WAIRIA” of expertise—bear with me. I will speak to my Amendments 289 to 298 and 314 to 316, but before doing so, I give full-throated support to everything the noble Lord said and his amendments. We are very much on the same page.
There is a strange situation with government at the moment when it comes to AI. That is not specific to employment rights but across the piece. We have been subject to it for the past year. We are told consistently that the Government will not be bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation. That position is to be defended if it is taken—the Government have decided on a domain-specific AI approach. But the difficulty with that is that whenever we have had domain-specific legislation coming through your Lordships’ House—be it product regulation, data or any of the Bills that I, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, have worked on—we have been told that those are not the Bills where AI is to be considered. In only a slightly reductive way, we currently have a situation, to be clear, where the Government are saying they are not bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation and specific Bills are largely—not exclusively—not the place to incorporate AI issues.
The amendments that noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I set out in this group are key to one of the most important sectors—it is broader than a sector, and such an important aspect of our lives. It is how we are employed, what that employment looks and feels like, and how it is experienced by all of us. These amendments do not seek to address issues that will occur next year, next month or even tomorrow. AI is impacting workers right now, oftentimes without them even knowing that it is in the mix.
My first amendment seeks to suggest that the principles that have variously appeared in White Papers and other reports are put on a statutory basis in the Bill. We give ourselves the best opportunity to optimise with AI if we take a principles-based, outcomes-focused and input-understood approach. Similarly, I set out in Amendment 290 that all employers and organisations that develop, deploy or use AI should have an AI responsible officer. For this, do not think burdensome, bureaucratic or overcompliance. Because of the proportionality principle, it simply means that there is an obligation on those employers to report on their use of AI in the workplace. It can be well understood through reporting obligations such as those set out in the Companies Act, which employers will be very familiar with at this stage.
My amendments then move to questions of use. What happens where IP or copyrighted material is being used in the workplace? There needs to be labelling so that everybody is clear on, and there is transparency about, what is going on. What about the use of workers’ data? This is an incredibly rich resource that should not in any sense be served up or sold off to the highest bidder. The use of AI in the workplace should be clear and transparent, and workers should have an opt-in, not an opt-out, responsibility, as set out in the amendments.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has touched on, there is the question of automated decisions. It is clear that workers not only have to be aware that ADM is being used—and have the right to opt out—but also need the right to a human explanation of what is happening in those situations. If we are to optimise things with these technologies, concepts such as “human in the loop” and “human over the loop” must be understood. Safeguards need to be in place, not least where ADM is used, and this could form part of the data protection impact assessment that employers have to undertake.
Then there is the question of regulators. Employment and recruitment currently find themselves wide open to the use of AI. An individual may find themselves not getting shortlisted, not getting hired and not even knowing that the reasoning behind that was algorithmic processing rather than human judgment and human reasoning. It is critical to consider the right approach to fill that regulator gap. Would a specific employment and recruitment regulator do the job? My view—and I think there is evidence to support this—would again be that we could have a cross-sector AI authority. Again, do not think of a bureaucratic and burdensome AI regulator; instead, think of a nimble, agile, adaptive and, crucially, horizontally focused AI regulator, not only in the area of employment rights but across the whole of our economy and society. It would deliver that clarity, consistency and certainty that we all need wherever we come across AI in our working, professional and private lives.
It is so significant that, in Amendment 315, I believe there should be a commission on AI in the workplace. Mindful of comments from Monday, I am certainly no fan of setting up a commission to delay or kick issues into the long grass. But perhaps by using the technology to solve some of the issues that are created by the technology, we could have a reimagined approach to commissions and consultations.
Finally, I come to Amendment 316 and the algorithmic allocation of work. This is already happening, and it has already been in front of the courts. It is clearly an issue and one that needs to be fully understood. The Government need to state clearly their position on this most significant of matters. I look forward to other speakers and to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow two of the House’s acknowledged experts in this area of the impact of AI. I will speak to my own Amendment 323B and also note that I attach my name to Amendments 294 and 298 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
My Amendment 323B is quite a modest step. It calls for a review to be published within 12 months. In saying that, I thank the Ministers for having a meeting prior to the discussion of these amendments, which I very much appreciated. But I think the time for talk is over; the time for action is now. Twelve months is still too short, but it seemed the best timeframe I could reasonably give for this call for a review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. This picks up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. It also crucially points to the need to look around the world and see what else is happening and what we can learn from what has happened in other places. The companies selling these systems are global giant multinational companies. The companies deploying these systems are giant multinational companies in many cases. It is important that, rather than trying to pick this off ourselves, we look around the world and say that we want to be leaders in creating a different kind of model of how workers can be protected.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, following the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I do feel obliged to say some very brief words on this group of amendments. I was at the helm of the TUC when we produced an AI manifesto for workers and that manifesto was AI-positive and optimistic about the potential for AI to help us create more satisfying work for workers and also boost productivity if we share those gains fairly. But it was also realistic, because the real experience of workers at the sharp end in terms of technology more generally is that it has often been used to drive, for example, the gig economy that this Bill proudly is looking to tackle in terms of insecurity and low pay.
Workers also experience oppressive surveillance, with Amazon being right at the top of the rogues’ gallery in that respect. And, of course, technologies such as facial recognition have been developed that bake in race discrimination. So, of course workers are right to be wary and concerned. That is why one of the key demands in that AI manifesto was, as the noble Lord has talked about before, the right to a human review when it comes to decisions about hire and fire. The right to a human review is a fundamental human right. Critically, the manifesto called for a voice for workers in agreeing new technology, including AI agreements, so that workers’ concerns are addressed directly and agreements are made with employers about how AI is introduced and used.
Given that, in a very welcome sense, there has been such broad interest and concern expressed in this short debate, can the Minister reassure us that we will be addressing not just problems such as the gig economy that we saw growing in the 20th century but the new challenges of the 21st century, where workers urgently need protection?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments in this group and for their thoughtful introductions and contributions to what is clearly a vital and timely discussion around the future of artificial intelligence in the workplace.
Amendments 148, 149 and 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seek to define AI systems in statute, mandate a workplace AI risk and impact assessment, known as a WAIRIA—I was not sure how to say it—and impose statutory consultation duties on employers prior to the deployment of such systems. In my respectful opinion, these measures go a bit too far at this stage.
To begin with the proposed definition of an AI system, I fully accept the need for clarity in legislation, but the definition offered here is overly expansive and risks capturing a vast range of tools, from predictive text and email sorting to payroll systems and basic data analytics. Technology evolves rapidly, and we think that any attempt to lock such a broad and fluid concept into rigid statutory language at this point risks hindering innovation and forcing employers into compliance regimes for systems that may pose no meaningful risk at all.
On the proposal for workplace AI risk and impact assessments, the intentions behind this are understandable. However, the execution here reads a little more like a blueprint for a full-scale regulatory regime rather than a light-touch safeguard. Employers would be expected to carry out detailed documentation, consult staff, assess and monitor impacts on mental health, contractual terms, pay and more, and then repeat that process at least annually or upon any system change—and that is no small task. For large employers it might be possible, but for SMEs it would surely be burdensome and, in many cases, entirely unworkable. Our concern is not with the principle of transparency or fairness but with the disproportionate bureaucratic weight that these provisions would place on businesses, particularly those outside the technology sector, which simply may not have the capacity or technical knowledge to meet such a standard.
The third proposal, which is a statutory duty to consult employees or trade unions at least one month before deploying AI systems, again assumes a degree of foresight and technical certainty that may not always exist in practice. The development and use of AI systems is often iterative, and definitions, use cases and impacts evolve over time. Requiring formal consultation at every turn risks paralysing technological progress and may well deter even the cautious adoption of beneficial systems.
I recognise that the amendments are rooted in a desire to protect workers and uphold ethical standards, but we have to resist the temptation to reach immediately for sweeping, front-loaded legislation in a domain that is still very much in its infancy. Regulation in this space, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree, must be agile, proportionate and grounded in practical reality.
We are entering a new phase where AI is no longer confined to research labs or boardrooms. It is appearing across ordinary workplaces, public and private alike. There are tremendous opportunities to improve productivity, streamline operations and foster collaboration between human workers and AI tools, yet we think many of the proposals in this group—including those seen elsewhere, such as the mandatory appointment of AI officers, rights to personalised algorithmic explanations, opt-in clauses, and statutory principles of fairness and explainability—share a common shortcoming, which is that they attempt to legislate about highly technical and fast-evolving systems with a degree of rigidity that may prove counterproductive.
We on these Benches share the Government’s ambitions to become a world leader in this space, and therefore we must remain mindful of all those factors, as well as of existing protections. Several of these proposals risk duplicating duties already present under UK GDPR, data protection law and various existing employment safeguards. The creation of overlapping, inconsistent or duplicative regimes could confuse employers and regulators alike, all while doing little to prevent truly harmful practices.
While we acknowledge all the opportunities that are potentially offered by AI, we must remain vigilant to the risks that it poses, including algorithmic bias, opacity and decision-making—which we have heard a lot about—and the misuse of personal data. But that vigilance must be coupled with regulatory restraint. We ought to be cautious to not impose premature, overly burdensome rules that stifle innovation and overwhelm well-intentioned employers, particularly in low-risk use cases, such as rota planning, document handling or payroll automation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 148, 149 and 150; the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his Amendments 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 315 and 316; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 323B. I thank them for generating an important debate on these issues. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for her wise words on this issue.
I will take the amendments in turn. Amendments 148, 149 and 150 seek to introduce mandatory AI risk assessments in the workplace where there are significant impacts on workers, and would place a requirement on employers to consult employees and trade union representatives before implementing AI systems that might significantly impact employment rights and conditions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 315 and 316, which would establish an independent commission on AI in the workplace and a project to investigate the potential challenges posed by the algorithmic allocation of work by employers. Amendment 323B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, proposes a government review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. I agree with her that the cases that she cited were completely unacceptable.
As noble Lords will be aware, under data protection law employers are required to fulfil obligations as controllers if they collect and use their employees’ personal data. This includes the provision of meaningful information to the workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them having a legal or similarly significant effect will be based solely on automatic processing. Furthermore, as noble Lords know, the Data (Use and Access) Bill includes a range of safeguards relating to solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s plan to make work pay makes it clear that workers’ interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in the workplace. Our approach is to protect good jobs, ensure good future jobs, and ensure that rights and protections keep pace with technological change.
The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. The plan’s proposals regarding the use of AI and monitoring technology in the workplace were not included in the Employment Rights Bill to allow time for the full suite of options to be considered with proper consultation, given the novel nature of AI-enabled technology. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work play plan in due course.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, beginning with Amendments 289 and 290. The Government agree with him that AI should be used ethically, with proper mechanisms for redress. That is why existing data protection legislation provides safeguards for solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals and the use of AI where personal data is processed, including in workplaces.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Amendment 291, which would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and IP used in AI training and allow independent audits of AI processes. As he knows, this issue is under active consideration in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. A public consultation sponsored by DSIT, the IPO and DCMS on issues relating to copyright and AI, including questions on transparency, closed in February 2025. Transparency in the use of intellectual property material in AI training has been acknowledged in debates and government amendments as a critical issue. I committed only yesterday that the Government will publish a report on the subject within nine months of Royal Assent. I respectfully suggest that it is not helpful to have the same debate running across these two Bills at the same time.
In addressing Amendments 292 and 293 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am happy to reassure him that the UK’s data protection framework already provides robust and effective protection for processing personal data, including for workers. Consent is a lawful ground for processing personal data, but it may not be freely given in employment contexts due to the power imbalance between the employer and the employee. That is why we would not deem it appropriate to restrict the lawful grounds on which data can be processed in this way. In addition, when processing personal data, organisations are required to notify data subjects, such as employees, of matters such as the purposes for data processing, any automated decision-making, any recipients of the data and the data subject’s rights. This includes the right to object to it being processed or to restrict what can be done with it.
Amendments 294, 295 and 296 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concern the use of automated decision-making. I reaffirm that, under data protection law, employers must fulfil their obligations as controllers if they collect and use employees’ personal data. They must provide meaningful information to workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them, having a legal or similarly significant effect, will be based solely on automated processing. This ensures that workers are informed about the logic involved in the automated processing, as well as the significance and envisaged consequences for them.
The reforms in the Data (Use and Access) Bill include a range of safeguards after a decision about an individual has been taken based solely on automated decision-making. I hope that noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady O’Grady, will be reassured that these safeguards include that the individuals receive information about significant decisions, as well as the opportunity to make representations and obtain human intervention.
Further, the Government agree that human intervention in automated decision-making should be carried out competently. The UK’s data protection regulator, the ICO, has existing guidance explaining how requests for human review should be managed. When it comes to high-risk automated decision-making, the Government do not feel it necessary to introduce an outright prohibition of processing of the nature described in Amendment 294. Specific requirements already apply for processing that could result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Organisations must carry out an impact assessment and consult the ICO where such an assessment indicates a high risk to individuals in the absence of effective measures.
I turn to Amendment 298, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the creation of a new regulator for the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord may be aware, last year the previous Government published guidance on responsible AI in recruitment, which was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Government, via the AI Security Institute and the central AI risk function, are already progressing our understanding of AI risks, including AI and its impact on the labour market. This work is being carried out across government, with the involvement of each department where specific sector knowledge is valuable.
I remind the noble Lord that AI is not currently unregulated. Given the cross-cutting nature of AI, the Government believe that it is best regulated at the point of use by the UK’s existing sectoral regulators. As experts in their sectors, they are best placed to understand the uses and risks of AI in their relevant areas. That is why, in response to the AI action plan, the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are also developing legislative proposals that will allow us to safely realise the enormous benefits of the most powerful AI systems. These proposals will be highly targeted and designed to be future-proofed and effective against this fast-evolving technology. We look forward to engaging further with a wide range of stakeholders on our legislative proposals, including providing clarity on where responsibility for compliance with any new rules will lie.
Noble Lords have provided some interesting areas for consideration, but we are keen that these far-reaching amendments are properly assessed. I reassure noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into. In this respect, I am pleased to note the active engagement between my officials and stakeholders, most recently with the IPPR, whose recent report on surveillance technologies makes a helpful contribution to the awareness and understanding of this context. As already mentioned, we intend to consult on these make work pay proposals in due course. Furthermore, I remind noble Lords that in response to the AI action plan the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.
Finally, I thank noble Lords for their interest in how AI is being adopted in the workplace and the helpful way in which they have focused on these issues. I reassure my noble friend Lady O’Grady that we are working with the relevant stakeholders to build a strong evidence base to tackle the 21st-century challenges relating to these technologies. Our public consultation will be a crucial part of future-proofing the proposals. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to making sure that workers’ interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his Amendment 148.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. That is probably the most comprehensive statement about the Government’s intentions on AI regulation that I have heard in this Parliament, so I thank her and her officials for taking the time and trouble to set out their approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about gap analysis. I am very much in favour of that. I do not want to see duplication of regulation; I want to see effective regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, set out the challenge: will the Government address the new challenges? That seems to be absolutely at the heart of this.
I thank the Minister for her assurance that there will be an imminent consultation. I think all of us with an interest in this will very much want to take part in that. I hope that this mini-debate has started the ball rolling in getting people’s thoughts about what we can do. What the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said was crucial; the illustrations she gave were exactly why we are concerned about these issues.
Talking of gap analysis, this morning I helped to launch the ICO’s new AI and biometrics strategy. We are all a bit nervous about this because we do not think the current ICO regime covers all the issues relating to AI use, particularly in the workplace. We are subject to exactly the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, put his finger on. The Government have no appetite for cross-sectoral regulation, but what does that mean? Does it mean having to pick off individual sectors, sector by sector, only to be told on individual Bills, “I’m sorry, it’s not appropriate to start legislating about AI in our particular bit of legislation”?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, before we move to the next group, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 151 is agreed I will not be able to call Amendments 152 to 158 for reason of pre-emption.
Schedule 4: Pay and conditions of school support staff in England
Amendment 151
Baroness Barran
“(1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—(a) the remuneration of school support staff,(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff,(c) the training of school support staff,(d) career progression for school support staff, and(e) related matters.(3) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (2), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the definition of “exceptional circumstances” shall be set out in regulations.(5) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—(a) the remuneration of school support staff;(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;(c) the training of school support staff;(d) career progression for school support staff.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection (5)—(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to career progression for school support staff.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would change the matters within the SSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 151, 174 and 180, which are in my name. These amendments would address one of the most crucial challenges in our education system: how we value, support and compensate more than half the school workforce—the non-teaching staff. These teaching assistants, business managers, IT technicians, cleaners and catering staff form the backbone of every successful school.
While the Government’s intention to establish a school support staff negotiating body demonstrates a genuine commitment to these vital employees, and indeed fulfils a manifesto pledge, I am really concerned that the proposals as drafted are unworkable, expensive and time-consuming. They will add to the complexity and workload of every single school, not just academies. Individual maintained schools will often not be aware that the pay structure in their local authority is different from that in a neighbouring one. My amendments focus on academy schools, but the thrust of my argument to the Government is to think again because of the impact on every single school.
Amendment 151 seeks to mitigate potential damage by limiting the SSSNB’s powers to creating a framework that academies must consider regarding remuneration, terms and conditions, training, career progression and related matters. I believe that these flexibilities should extend to maintained schools. Amendment 174 would require the Government to produce before introducing these changes an impact assessment of the cost to the whole education sector, both academies and maintained schools. Amendment 180 would require annual reports of the SSSNB to include an assessment of the increased costs to the sector of any pay and conditions agreements.
It is important that we are clear what we mean by support staff. Support staff are not a homogenous group but an extraordinarily diverse workforce spanning many different roles, skill levels and contexts. Teaching assistants, while crucial, comprise less than half of all support staff. The remainder includes roles ranging from pastoral care to facilities managers, finance assistants, network administrators and school receptionists.
A small maintained primary school might employ a part-time administrative assistant handling multiple responsibilities, while a large multi-academy trust might maintain specialised finance teams, HR professionals and IT specialists serving multiple schools across a region. This diversity is intentional and beneficial. Schools and trusts have developed different approaches to organising their support functions because they face varying challenges. They serve distinct communities and operate at very different scales. What serves a 100-pupil rural primary school will not suit a 2,000-pupil secondary academy. What works for a stand-alone school will not fit a trust operating across multiple regions. Any national framework that fails to acknowledge this reality risks becoming either too vague to be useful or too rigid to serve communities effectively.
I am not trying to suggest that the status quo is perfect. The current National Joint Council arrangements have significant weaknesses in their application to schools, leading some local authorities such as those in the so-called London fringe to opt out of the Green Book terms and conditions entirely.
First, the NJC terms and conditions were designed for general local government workers—from refuse collectors to office administrators—but they barely address schools’ specific working environments and unique demands. Secondly, there is insufficient co-ordination between teacher and support staff pay negotiations. These separate processes often reach conflicting conclusions about affordability and appropriate pay increases. Did the Minister consider expanding the remit of the STRB to include support staff? Thirdly, the Department for Education has minimal influence over support staff pay decisions, and school affordability is not factored into NJC decision-making. Consequently, when resources are limited, teachers’ pay becomes the residual after other decisions are made, which is clearly an extraordinary outcome.
The current legislative approach is fundamentally flawed. Mandating a single detailed set of terms and conditions for all support staff will create more problems than it solves and certainly will not address the challenges schools face with recruitment and retention. First, it is essentially impossible to have a national set of pay scales for this very wide range of roles, given the vast variation in how schools and trusts organise their functions and their work. Consider this example: how can one write a generic job description for a finance assistant that serves both a small primary school’s sole financial administrator and a large trust’s specialist management accountant? Although sharing a title, these roles require entirely different skills, qualifications and responsibilities. What schools do for themselves, and what is done by the local authority or trust’s central team, varies hugely across the country. How many people there are to run finance or technology in a school, and therefore their seniority and skill, depends on the size of the school and on its legal status.
Secondly, at present, under the NJC each local authority sets its own grading structure. Even if you could find a role which was commonly defined across the country, you would find that it was graded and paid somewhat differently in different areas. The SSSNB would be expected to override these 150 grading structures and produce one national one. This would inevitably entail paying some people more, at potentially substantial cost in some areas, or paying some people less. I would argue that neither outcome is palatable.
Furthermore, much of this variation is driven by local labour markets. Some areas have to pay more than others to get decent IT skills, for example. It would be extraordinary to require schools in Cambridge to pay the same for IT skills as other schools if it meant that they could not get the skilled people they needed or that other schools had to pay significantly more than they do now.
I have heard Ministers suggest that their aim is to create a pay floor, not a ceiling, but that does not change the fundamental problem. It represents a full pay negotiation beyond NJC agreements, and therefore an effective national grading structure in which roles are mapped to a national spine in a consistent way across the country, rather than the more than 150 ways that currently exist. The task of trying to do that could begin only after considering every local variation. The floor points negotiation faces another challenge: employers cannot afford floors above current pay rates, plus cost of living adjustments, and understandably unions will not accept anything lower, even as a minimum. Given that the same role currently receives different pay across local authorities within the NJC, achieving both goals everywhere is impossible.
I hope the Minister acknowledges that this will create complications for local authorities, as their grading structures will likely not align with nationally mandated school support staff pay scales. Must authorities alter their grading structures to match the national framework, or will they apply it only to schools, or neither? Every possible answer creates serious problems of complexity and comparability within individual local authorities.
Most concerningly, this fiendishly complicated approach addresses non-existent problems. Despite repeated allegations of academies cutting and poaching support staff, sector colleagues can find no evidence of this. I find it hard to imagine that any rational person would take a cut in their salary to be poached. In fact, academies that have departed from standard terms and conditions have done so to enhance pay and improve conditions and career prospects, not to reduce them. Claims that support staff lack clear contractual terms are just not correct. Like teachers, they have specific contracts, often referencing established national or local frameworks. Contractual arrangements are not the issue.
Our school support staff deserve recognition, proper pay, good working conditions and career development opportunities. Above all, they need a policy framework that serves them and their schools effectively. We can build this through pragmatic reform, building on existing strengths, addressing real weaknesses, and respecting the diversity and complexity of modern school organisations. However, we cannot achieve meaningful improvement through legislation that ignores schools’ practical operations and imposes uniformity where variety better serves everyone. My amendments seek to make some progress towards this goal. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in my name, but first I fully endorse what my noble friend Lady Barran has said. It is worth the Government reflecting on her direct experience of this before Report.
My amendment is quite simple. It is about the practice and conventions behind whatever we get into primary legislation. Candidly, I object to the naming of an organisation that is not a regulator in this country as needing to be consulted by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can consult anybody they like when considering making regulations. I do not see why the TUC should be named in primary legislation. That is the reason for my amendment. This is poor legislation and adds nothing to the Bill.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran in her amendments, as I am rather confused by how this will improve the education system.
I speak as someone on the front line. As of today, my academy trust employs 717 non-teaching staff across our 18 schools. We provide high-quality benefits to our staff. We have to match the terms and conditions of the local authority, including a very generous pension, and we are proud to do so—but we go much further. For example, we offer a health scheme for all our teaching and non-teaching staff, which provides an online consultation with a GP and online access to prescriptions, so that they can get treatment far more quickly than through the NHS backlog, and we provide a dental scheme which gives access to one hygienist appointment a year, as well as theatre and retail discounts.
On top of that, we have been very assertive in pushing through apprenticeships for our non-teaching staff. We have put 69 staff through apprenticeships over the last couple of years, which is a pretty high percentage of the 700-odd staff we employ. We did that knowing full well that we would lose a lot of them as they became skilled and moved on to jobs elsewhere, which is what they have done.
How will this improve anything for teaching? It will add another layer of administration and costs, and more HR resource will have to be deployed to wade our way through these regulations. Listening to my noble friend Lady Barran, they sound extraordinarily impractical because, frankly, an IT support staff member in, say, Thetford, which is where we have our most westerly school, is in a very different market from anything in Cambridge. Indeed, what is an IT role? The role is changing almost monthly, as we try to create data lakes to access a large language model for our own teaching data. These things are undefined—you will have to create bands that are so wide as to be meaningless.
To the point made by my noble friend Lady Barran, we cannot afford to go higher and we cannot go lower, so what is the point of all this? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the proposed school support staff negotiating body, as set out in the Bill. Noble Lords may remember that such a body was established in 2010. All the things that have been said in the Chamber today on this issue were talked about prior to that. Unfortunately, there was a change of Government. The coalition came in and even though the arguments were dealt with, everything was set up and moving forward, and the school support staff negotiating body—which we had great hope in—had met once, the coalition’s first act was to abolish it.
Through the Employment Rights Bill, we can rectify something which was wrong. The new body referred to in the Bill is long overdue. It will work towards a number of goals for support staff, some of which have already been mentioned. It would give them a voice in the education debate, achieve fair pay, which is the law of this land, and create unified pay and conditions across the country—what is so wrong with that? Local government, which has been mentioned, negotiates on behalf of millions of local government workers who do different jobs in different communities, with different arrangements in place to meet the local conditions where the service is being provided. All that has been in place not for decades, but for a century. Look at our National Health Service. We all applaud joint working and the implementation of fair pay and conditions—fair pay for work of equal value— across the NHS and all the different disciplines it provides in our communities. Collective bargaining works well. Those bodies address and deal with any issues as they arise.
We are talking about a group of school staff who, for many years, have seen teachers have collective bargaining—which we obviously support. Other school staff have nothing; they are at the whim of the headmaster or headmistress, and of local conditions. Little is done on their behalf, which is why school support staff across the country welcome the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body.
The TUC is a voice for good. It is at the heart of the trade union movement and is respected by employers and governments alike. If there are differences or issues that need to be tackled, why not go to the heart of the trade union movement and ask for its advice and assistance? It has been doing it for nearly 100 years and doing it well. There is no reason whatsoever why it cannot be part of the arrangements for establishing the new body. I am proud of the work the TUC does.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was clear that the Secretary of State could consult whoever they liked, and I would not be surprised if that was the TUC. My point is, why is this being put into primary legislation when it is completely unneeded?
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.
The whole intention appears to be to limit the scope of any collective bargaining. It is as clear as day. Different forms of words can be come up with concerning who is involved, who should clear what, and so on. That delays things, and that is the intention of the amendments before us.
Noble Lords have to understand that the proposals legislate for the Secretary of State or their nominee to be involved in the negotiating body. I personally have no reservations about that. We want to talk to the people who have the power and the influence to make decisions that improve the service and teaching in our schools. This proposed new body is intended to improve schools and education. What better way of doing it than to bring people together, give them a voice, allow it to be heard and come to conclusions which are for the benefit of all?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate, and I thank my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Coffey for their amendments in this group. We have had some very interesting real-life examples given by my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, and an important dimension from the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, to which I will return in a moment.
I am, however, pleased to speak in support of Amendment 151, introduced by my noble friend Lady Barran. This amendment highlights an essential but often underappreciated part of our school workforce: the support staff. That is where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds. Those support staff keep schools running smoothly every day. From teaching assistants to catering teams, their work is vital, and as my noble friend put it, they form the backbone of the whole system.
The Government’s Bill takes a step forward by proposing the creation of a school support staff negotiating body, and I make it clear that I believe that is a welcome move. However, the Bill’s current approach, with its push for a single set of national pay and conditions, risks overlooking the real differences which exist between schools, as my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton pointed out, especially between maintained schools and academies.
What this amendment does so well is to recognise the need for a flexible framework for academies, one that they must consider and may depart from only in exceptional circumstances. This respects academies’ independence while still promoting fairness and consistency.
We must of course remember that “support staff” is a broad term covering a wide range of roles and responsibilities. The needs of a small primary school and a large multi-academy trust are not at all the same, and any framework has to reflect that diversity. Like in most areas of the Bill, the Government have taken a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that I am concerned could create confusion and strain resources. Instead, a balanced framework such as the one my noble friend proposes offers a practical way to support staff fairly, without unnecessary bureaucracy.
My noble friend also raised an important point about the potential costs and bureaucratic complexity that come with establishing another negotiating body such as the school support staff negotiating body. This is not just about money but about the practical demands placed on schools and trusts, especially smaller ones with limited administrative capacity.
Setting up and maintaining a new national negotiating framework involves significant resources: time, personnel and funding. Schools will need to engage with the school support staff negotiating body’s processes, potentially adapt to new systems for pay, terms and training, and ensure compliance with frameworks that may be complex and constantly evolving.
For large multi-academy trusts, this might be manageable, but for smaller schools—already stretched thin—it adds a layer of bureaucracy that can divert valuable time and resources away from teaching and supporting pupils. Moreover, the negotiation and implementation processes risk becoming slow and cumbersome, delaying important decisions on staff pay and conditions. This could lead to uncertainty and frustration among support staff and their employers alike.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her insightful remarks. She makes a compelling and important point: the Secretary of State is already required to consult the prescribed school support staff organisations, which represent the full spectrum of support staff voices, yet this amendment rightly challenges why the Trades Union Congress should be given a special, privileged position with an additional mandatory consultation in primary legislation that risks unnecessary delay, added bureaucracy and potential obstruction.
Although the TUC is of course a major trade union umbrella—many colleagues across the Chamber will remind us of its history—it does not have a monopoly on representing school support staff. Many staff organisations operate independently and effectively without TUC oversight. Therefore, by insisting on formal TUC consultations, we risk entrenching a narrow set of interests, potentially sidelining smaller or non-TUC affiliated groups that also deserve a seat at the table.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
What can I say? It is an utter pleasure to be here to respond to this debate. I was not aware that I had a choice; nevertheless, I am very pleased to make my first appearance in Committee on this Bill, which I see that noble Lords have been enjoying for several days already.
I am very pleased to consider these amendments on such an important provision in the Bill. Establishing the school support staff negotiating body is an important part of this Government’s plan to make work pay and of the opportunity mission. As several noble Lords have already identified, the nearly 800,000 support staff in our schools are playing a vital role in children’s education and development, are supporting teaching staff and parents, and are ensuring that our schools can run effectively. Despite their contribution, there is an acute recruitment and retention challenge. It is that issue that the SSSNB seeks to remedy and improve, along with providing a voice for those staff in negotiations.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Prentis that a previous version of the SSSNB was established in 2009, but it was abolished very soon afterwards by the coalition Government when they came to power. Despite the arguments made by noble Lords opposite, in the 14 years between then and the opportunity now in this legislation, the previous Government did not choose to set up a framework to reduce complexity around the negotiation of terms and conditions for school support staff. They did not choose to make it more straightforward for schools. They stuck with the complexity inherent in the current negotiating arrangements through the NJC, which do not give a voice to the particular issues relating to school support staff that our proposals will. That is why the SSSNB, which is being established in this Bill, has a remit designed to reflect the needs of all state-funded schools in England today, bringing together employer and employee representatives with an independent chair to negotiate on pay and conditions and to advise on training and career progression.
As my noble friend Lord Prentis said, that enables the voice of those involved in this work to be represented both in negotiations about pay and conditions and in important considerations on how to make these roles something that people will want to come and do, will be trained to be as effective as possible in doing, and will want to carry on doing, staying in our schools doing their enormously important roles.
In thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Barran, for tabling Amendments 151, 174, 175 and 180, I hope I can respond and provide some assurance on those. First, on Amendment 175, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on the role of the TUC in this legislation, it will be the case that the SSSNB will, as is clear in the legislation, allow representatives of the employers and representatives of the employees to engage in these negotiations. The Secretary of State will consult on regulations about precisely who those representatives should be, and that will be named then in secondary legislation.
It does not seem wrong to me—in fact, it seems quite sensible—when thinking about who from the trade union side should represent employees, that the TUC, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, is the umbrella body for trade unions, should be consulted about which would be the appropriate trade union representatives for school support staff. It is for that reason that we have included this within the legislation: to enable the Secretary of State to make an informed decision when deciding which unions should represent school support staff on the body.
Turning to Amendment 151, and several of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the nature, complexity and coverage of the SSSNB, we are, in this legislation, creating a new system for support staff in 2025. We are not trying to amend an existing one. It is appropriate, therefore, that we consider the coverage of that board in the light of the current make-up of the school system. Roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are academies, compared to around 200 when the original SSSNB was set up in 2009. Academies are a significant element of the state school system now, and it is therefore right that they should be included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools to ensure there is greater national consistency.
Our intention, however, is for the SSSNB to agree floors, not ceilings, for pay and conditions. Beyond minimum agreements reached by the SSSNB—which, by the way, I would have thought would actually make it easier, not more complicated, for head teachers, particularly those in small schools, to understand the context in which they were operating when considering the employment of school support staff—all schools will be able to innovate with pay and conditions to attract and retain the best workforce that they need for our children. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, gave us some good examples of the ways in which schools are able to innovate and support the school support staff in his academy chain. Those things are admirable. They are facilitated by this Bill; they are not prevented by it. What is more, I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, meant this, but there was a sort of implication that what was being proposed here was a body that would direct schools and head teachers as to whom and what they could employ with respect to support staff. That is not the intention of this body: it will remain the responsibility of the head teachers to determine whom they want in their team to meet the objectives that they have set. Nothing will mandate whom or what should be employed.
So, for all those reasons, we do not need to see the provisions that have been proposed in Amendment 151, which would in fact run against the idea that there should be a national, consistent approach to our school support staff. We already have the ability for academies to innovate, but we underpin that with a floor and a consistent national approach, informed by the voices of those who are employing school support staff and those who are representing their voice to enable it to be much more coherent than is the case at the moment.
On Amendment 174, the costs associated with changes to the constitution which are covered in this amendment are very unlikely to impact on the education sector. There will be limited administrative expenses and fees in setting up the negotiating board, but, for the reasons that I have already outlined, if anything, it is actually likely to make it more straightforward for schools to understand the scope—the pay levels that they would be offering to school support staff. So I do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on the constitutional arrangements. There will be the consultation that I have already referenced with respect to the arrangements and the process for setting up those arrangements. We will work hard with stakeholders to ensure that the arrangements work for all schools, including academies, and provide all schools with a core pay and conditions offer in doing that consultation.
I think I have responded to the point about costs, although I will come to the broader point that is made in Amendment 180, which is about assessing the cost implications of agreements reached by the SSSNB on pay and conditions. It will, of course, be important for the Department for Education to be able to assess the implications of recommendations made by the negotiating body prior to the Secretary of State ratifying any agreements. The legislation also gives the Secretary of State the power to refer matters back to the SSSNB, or to make regulations otherwise than in terms of the agreement if agreements reached are not practicable. That is to ensure consideration of the affordability of agreements reached for the education sector. At that point, of course, changes to terms and conditions would be implemented through the use of statutory instruments.
Just to re-emphasise the point that I made about school employers deciding who they employ, there are also powers in legislation to allow the Government to determine, after consultation, which school employees come within the remit of the SSSNB. Yes, this is a complex area, and there may be some categories of school support staff whom it is not appropriate to include within this body, but that will be determined through a process of consultation and set down in the regulations that I previously referred to.
I hope I have covered, and provided some reassurance in relation to, Amendment 180. This is a reasonable balance between enabling the voice and the expertise of the employers and the employees of school support staff to be able, through this body, to reach agreements around pay and conditions, to be put to the Secretary of State, and to do that important work around advising on improvements to training, development—all the types of things that are likely to lead to even more effective school support staff, and therefore even better support for our children, our schools and the teachers that these staff play such an important role in supporting.
I hope, on the basis of those assurances, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and add my support to in principle to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey: she makes a very sensible, practical point.
In picking up on some of the points made by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, I just make it clear for the record that I am not quite sure why the Minister thought I was suggesting that the legislation directed who—or “what” was, I think, her word—schools employed. I can re-look at my notes, but I am not clear why she got that impression. Of the many concerns in my mind, that was absolutely not one of them. Again, just to be absolutely clear, as I said in my remarks, we accept the principle of the SSSNB—I think the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, questioned that, but it was a manifesto commitment, and we acknowledge and accept that. What I was arguing for in relation to his remarks was a due regard framework, which I believed would deliver what the Minister says is the Government’s ambition: to create a floor, not a ceiling, and to create a system which permits innovation of the type that we heard about from my noble friend Lord Agnew.
I am sure that the noble Lord knows this, but in recent years, the pay increases for support staff have actually been significantly higher than for teachers. I think his concern was that somehow this group had been left behind, but, certainly in recent years, that has not been the case. I think my question to the Minister goes back to the cost. I understand the emotional pull, even if I do not think it reflects reality, of a single voice and a single settlement. The reality is that we live in different micro-economies around the country. But if that is the Government’s aim, surely, to be responsible, they need to work out up front what it is going to cost. If we are not going to take a cut, and every IT assistant is going to be paid the same as those who live in Cambridge, and that is applied to every other role, could the Minister kindly write to me and put the letter in the Library setting out what those adjustments are? To introduce legislation without having worked out what the cost will be once implemented risks being irresponsible. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I fear that we may revisit this.
Lord Hendy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to make the Negotiating Body a collective bargaining body rather than a consultative body by leaving it to the industrial parties to determine the matters which require to be collectively bargained (within the statutory definition of collective bargaining in s.178) and so partially fulfils the requirements of the ILO for free and voluntary collective bargaining.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 152 to 179, which are intended not to undermine but to improve the SSSNB.
First, I will say a word about collective bargaining relevant to these amendments and to later amendments dealing with that subject. The term was coined by Beatrice Webb in 1891. It means negotiations between one or several trade unions on the one side and one or more employers or employers’ associations on the other, with a view to agreeing rates of remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment for a defined group of workers. The term is defined in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which sets out various matters which may form the basis of such negotiations—not just pay, terms and conditions, but including dismissals, allocation of work, union facilities, dispute resolution machinery, and so on. The International Labour Organization—ILO—has a similar, but less detailed, definition in Convention 154.
Collective bargaining may be on a sector-wide basis across a particular industry or it may be confined to a particular enterprise. Where there are sectoral agreements setting minimum terms, they are usually improved upon by enterprise agreements with individual employers in the sector. The UK was the first country to establish widespread collective bargaining coverage. By 1948, the then Prime Minister could say in a broadcast to the nation that:
“We have built up in this country a system of collective bargaining without parallel in the world”.
That coverage was built upon two pillars: the statutory wages councils introduced by Winston Churchill in the Trade Boards Act 1909, latterly regulated by the Wages Council Act 1979, and the voluntary joint national councils, or Whitley councils, pursuant to the reports of the Reconstruction Committee after the First World War by JH Whitley. Governments of all persuasions were committed to the promotion of collective bargaining, particularly because of its very positive effect on productivity in both world wars. In consequence, collective agreement coverage of UK workers was in excess of 80% between 1945 and 1980.
Significantly, the proportion of workers covered by only an enterprise-level collective agreement was almost insignificant and had grown to only 9% by the late 1970s. The dismantling of sectoral collective bargaining since 1980 has produced a steady downward curve in the coverage, which was not halted by the introduction of the recognition machinery for enterprise-level bargaining in 2000. The percentage of workers whose terms are negotiated now is likely to be around 25%. The remaining three-quarters must take what they are offered.
The staggering decline from over 80% coverage to 25% has had a devastating effect on workers. The stagnation in the real value of wages and the meteoric rise in zero-hours contracts and job insecurity can be attributed, at least in part, to that dramatic decline. To achieve the growth and improvement in living standards rightly sought by the Government necessitates restoration of extensive collective bargaining coverage.
There are considerable benefits to that. A few years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out that:
“The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work. Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends ... rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government ... Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace”.
It has also been said that collective bargaining
“is the mode in which employees participate in setting the terms and conditions of employment, rather than simply accepting what their employer chooses to give them”.
Workers enjoy the benefits of increased wages and improved minimum terms and conditions. Trade unions can negotiate on a sector-wide stage without diminishing their ability to negotiate better terms locally.
The benefits of sectoral collective bargaining extend to employers too. Sectoral collective bargaining prevents undercutting and steadies labour costs. Employers in the same sector must compete instead in investment, innovation, efficiency and productivity—the fields of competition which foster growth. Employers, especially SMEs and micro employers, benefit from not having to research or negotiate wages with their workers. Instead, the minimum terms and conditions for their sector are contained in the sectoral agreement.
Employers profit from the increase in consumer demand, consequent on increased earnings generally. Governments enjoy increased tax from higher earnings and the diminished need to fund social security payments to subsidise low wages. Sectoral collective bargaining has proved to reduce inequality, not just between high and low earners but between women and men, and to reduce the pay gap suffered by disabled and ethnic-minority workers.
There is much research from academic institutions to support these conclusions, as well as from the ILO, OECD and IMF. In 2024, the European Union went so far as to adopt a directive requiring member states that have less than an 80% coverage of collective agreements to put in place an action plan to achieve such coverage.
A letter in last week’s Financial Times pointed out that Sweden—notwithstanding its conversion over the last 30 years from neosocialism to neoliberalism—preserved, at the insistence of employers and unions, the very extensive sectoral collective bargaining that characterises Nordic industrial relations.
Collective bargaining, and in particular sectoral collective bargaining, is not just desirable in itself; international law requires the UK to promote and encourage it. That is a subject I will return to in the next group.
It is unclear why the Bill does not stipulate the creation of collective bargaining bodies. The UK’s long and successful experience of statutory wages councils and voluntary joint national councils provides fine precedents. There are many other such precedents as well.
With that introduction, I turn to the proposition that the SSSNB is not the collective bargaining forum it should be, and which many unfamiliar with the detail of the Bill assumed it would be. To save time, I will also refer to the adult social care negotiating body—I wish the Government had chosen easier acronyms—since the Bill’s proposals and the arguments about them are virtually identical.
The relevant features are these. First, the Bill expressly states that nothing in the SSSNB is to be regarded as collective bargaining as defined by Section 178 of 1992 Act, and that any agreements reached are not to be regarded as collective agreements. The ASCNB is slightly different, in that the relevant Minister is given power to exclude the application of Section 178.
Secondly, the Bill defines a negotiating body, but its functions do not include negotiation. The parties have no power to decide for themselves the matters they wish to discuss and are confined to the four subjects permitted to each by the Bill, plus any additions conferred by the Minister. The very limited subjects so far permitted exclude, for example, work organisation, diversity and inclusion, eradication of pay gaps, health and safety, deployment of new technology, formulation of a dispute resolution procedure and the legal status of workers in the sector.
Thirdly, the Bill gives the Minister power to make regulations as to the nature of the consideration the negotiating body must give to the authorised subjects, with power to direct specific factors the body must take into consideration and any conditions that must be met in reaching agreement. Matters can be discussed by the SSSNB only with the permission, or on the direction, of the Minister, who can also specify matters that may not be discussed.
Fourthly, if the body reaches an agreement, the Minister can override it and require reconsideration, specifying factors that must be taken into account and conditions that must be met to reach a reconsidered agreement acceptable to Minister. Ultimately, the Minister can override agreements of the negotiating body.
Fifthly, if the negotiating body fails to agree, the Minister has the power to assume its functions and impose a settlement, regardless of the wishes of the parties, who may, of course, prefer their own dispute resolution procedure, or conciliation, mediation and arbitration by a third party in whom they have confidence.
Sixthly, terms agreed and approved, or simply dictated, by the Secretary of State will be set for all relevant workers. Consequently, any genuine collective agreement for more favourable terms will be void. Far from promoting collective bargaining, the effect of this provision is to preclude it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 152 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 153 and 154 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have put my name to only two of the amendments in this group, Amendments 154 and 164. Quite honestly, it took a lot of time and energy to read through all of his amendments; it must have taken an astonishing amount of time to write them all, so I am in awe of the work that the noble Lord has put into this Bill.
I was slightly nervous about the noble Lord’s mention of growth. I would like to know more about that later, perhaps, because growth obviously has to be of the right kind.
For me, collective bargaining is a way of making the world of work fairer. There are those who are vulnerable or not as talented who cannot argue for themselves, so they need support to do that. In a healthy economy, there is no place for poverty or for ultra-low wages, where people cannot pay their bills, feed their children or buy new shoes if they need them. It is incredibly important that people have a good wage.
My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle tabled an amendment to be discussed later in Committee for a 10:1 pay scale, such that you can pay your senior managers or CEO whatever you like, but you have to pay at least 1/10th of that amount to your cleaners, doormen or catering staff. The idea is that everybody needs a proper wage and, honestly, what would rich people do with even more money? They usually plough it not into the economy but into yachts and things like that.
I support almost every one of these amendments, and I am sorry that I have signed up to only two, but this is an incredibly important area. I hope the Government are able to shift a little on this and take advice from a very well-known lawyer who knows what he is talking about. We all want a fair world, and this is part of actually developing it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it will amaze the Committee to know that I do not support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This could be a golden moment—I do not want to spoil it before it happens—where the Minister and I are on the same page. We will hold our collective breath.
I will make a few points. It was helpful and genuinely interesting to hear the history, context and examples that the noble Lord gave in relation to collective bargaining, but the fundamental concern that we have is that we find it hard to see how many of those—he talked about zero-hour contracts, for example—really apply to public sector employees across our schools and academies.
Our sense is that, in a world in which the Secretary of State receives advice from the negotiating body—the SSSNB, although I noticed that in my amendment on the Marshalled List I cunningly dropped one of the S’s, which makes it easier to say—the principle that the Secretary of State retains discretion is a good principle to stick to. I think the noble Lord explained that there could be ways in which the Secretary of State could overrule, but I feel that that makes it unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps more importantly, it fundamentally changes the relationship between unions and employers, and risks—perhaps more than risks—creating a much more oppositional relationship, where trade unions on one side and local authorities and trusts on the other are directly opposing one another in these negotiations. I also question whether it is practical, given the nature of our schools landscape.
Can the Minister clarify a couple of points? Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170—the amendments that would leave out “employment”—would make the clause broader, to cover staff who are under contract rather than under contract of employment. Our concern is that that could cover people such as casual exam invigilators, peripatetic music teachers or staff who are under contract to look after the grounds. I would be grateful if she could confirm that the remit of the Bill refers to “terms of employment” as we understand it to mean.
Amendments 155 to 158 say to leave out “or is not”. This relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to prescribe the SSSNB remit through regulations. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Secretary of State can say that something is or is not to be treated as remuneration or a term of employment. For example, at present it could be said by the Secretary of State that an honorarium payment is not to be treated as being within the SSSNB’s remit. Removing “or is not” would mean the Secretary of State would have to be very specific indeed about what is to be considered remuneration. The current wording allows enough specificity about what is—and, importantly, what is not—within the remit of the SSSNB. We would argue that it is very important that that wording remains as is to avoid unnecessary confusion, tension or debate on its scope.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Barran for their contributions to this debate. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for getting rich people and yachts into a debate on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. That is no mean achievement and she deserves our congratulations. I very much enjoyed the history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I learned a lot and I am very grateful, but I am afraid I have not necessarily arrived at the same conclusions or been swayed by his arguments.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment 153 seeks to confine the School Support Staff Negotiating Body’s remit solely to matters defined under Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, effectively transforming the body from a consultative forum into a collective bargaining entity. It seems to us that this is a dangerous and fundamental shift. The negotiating body was designed to provide flexible, pragmatic consultation tailored to the diverse and complex nature of school support staff roles across a variety of settings. As we have heard, these range from small rural primaries to large multi-academy trusts. To impose the rigid and often adversarial legal framework of collective bargaining, as defined by industrial law, is to ignore the realities and needs of schools and academies. It risks bogging down negotiations in legal disputes and inflexible procedures that seem wholly unsuited to education.
Secondly, it dangerously extends the remit to include those working under contracts other than contracts of employment. That would create a vague and problematic category that threatens to blur employment relationships, dilute employer responsibility and foster legal uncertainty. Introducing such ambiguity would lead to confusion, disputes and potential litigation, detracting from the core mission of supporting school staff effectively.
Thirdly, Amendment 154, signed also by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, demands a formal dispute resolution process involving conciliation by ACAS and binding arbitration by the Central Arbitration Committee. While dispute resolution is important, mandating binding arbitration at multiple levels removes essential local discretion and flexibility. Schools and trusts require the ability to resolve issues quickly and pragmatically without resorting to protracted and costly arbitration. This amendment risks entrenching lengthy legal processes that are incompatible with the fast-moving and diverse educational establishment and environment.
Additionally, expanding the negotiating body’s remit to include discipline, grievance procedures and any “other matter” agreed by the parties is dangerously vague. It threatens to overload the body with operational matters that should be handled locally by employers, who understand their context best. It risks creating bottlenecks in decision-making, delaying essential actions and ultimately frustrating both staff and management. In essence, these amendments push for a highly legalistic industrial relations model that is inappropriate for school support staff and the complex, varied environments in which they work. It will increase bureaucracy, create inflexibility and heighten the risk of industrial conflict rather than fostering practical co-operation.
Building on these concerns, I will emphasise the significant risk of unmanageable negotiations that other amendments in this group introduce. If the negotiating parties are free to consider any payment, entitlement or matter without clear limits, the scope of discussions could become unwieldy and unfocused. Instead of concentrating on core issues, such as fair remuneration, reasonable terms and meaningful career development, negotiations would risk becoming mired in peripheral or impractical demands. This would risk slowing down the entire process, making it less efficient and ultimately less effective in delivering tangible benefits for school support staff.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I ought to clarify my comments on yachts. I have had a yacht of my own, but it was 21 feet long and I was referring to yachts that are 200 to 400 feet long. Sorry about that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am desperately searching for the note in my folder on yachts. I may have to write to the noble Baroness on that issue later.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his introduction to these amendments. As others have said, it was an interesting and important history of the progress that has been made in this country through a recognition of the strength of the collective voice of workers represented through the trade union movement, which is, of course, the basis of our party on this side of the House. Although I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend would want me to go in this, I hope I can reassure him that I think these proposals for the SSSNB make considerable progress in recognising the need for the voice of school support staff to be properly heard in bargaining about pay and conditions and improving the training and development options for those staff.
I know my noble friend Lord Hendy has had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Jones to talk about these principles. I hope he recognises, as I certainly do, the phenomenal work that she and other members of the team have done in this House in taking forward this piece of important legislation for the Government and the difference it is making to the rights of workers across this country. Those of us on this side of the House are proud of this piece of legislation and the work that has gone into it.
I can also reassure my noble friend that this Government support the work of the ILO, value its role in upholding and enhancing workers’ rights globally and remain committed to upholding international standards. In fact, the UK is in full compliance with all our international obligations on collective bargaining.
I turn to the SSSNB and the associated amendments in this group. I know my noble friend is here for the other elements of negotiating bodies that my noble friend Lord Hendy referenced, but first I shall speak to Amendments 152, 154 to 158, 161 and 173 to 179, which relate to collective bargaining, the role of the Secretary of State and concerns about the remit of the SSSNB.
The existing remit is broad. It covers the areas that will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges that state-funded schools are facing for support staff. As it is a negotiating body, employee and employer representatives will be able to meaningfully negotiate on pay and conditions as well as advise on training and career progression. As I spelt out in the previous group of amendments, this is a major step forward in the process for supporting our school support staff, who play such an important role in our schools.
As it is a statutory body, it is essential that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State, and that the interests of the Secretary of State are represented on the body with a non-voting representative. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the current wording provides the appropriate specificity on the remit for this body, appropriately involving the Secretary of State in the statutory role of the body but making a major step forward in enabling employees and employer representatives to negotiate on those areas.
I turn to Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170, which relate to those who work under a contract that is not a contract of employment—in other words, to the remit of the employees covered by this body. The vast majority of school support staff are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts as employees. The remit for employees is consistent with the approach taken in the 2009 legislation that first established the SSSNB and the current remit of the NJC. I hope that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the definition. We are content that the policy intent of the SSSNB provisions is met through the current remit, so the amendments are not required. They would broaden those under the auspices of the SSSNB in a way that would distort its role and responsibility, and they would introduce the sort of complexity that other noble Lords have talked about.
The remainder of the amendments in this group—Amendments 163 to 166, 168, 169, 171 and 172—relate to the protection of more favourable terms in staff contracts. As drafted, the Bill does not require regulations ratifying agreements of the SSSNB to impose limits on the terms and conditions under which school support staff can be employed. The intention is for support staff in all state-funded schools in England to benefit from a core pay and conditions offer, while providing the flexibility to respond to local circumstances above minimum agreements reached, and with more favourable pay and conditions for individuals protected.
We are taking concerns about the protection of individuals and room for innovation seriously. We will be consulting on the remit of the SSSNB and calling for evidence on terms and conditions in the summer. I therefore have some sympathy with those who might express concerns about whether there is sufficient protection for individuals, and I hope we will be able to clarify that.
I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend Lord Hendy asks the Government to go in his amendments, but I hope he will recognise that, in line with the progress of the collective representation of workers that he identified in his speech, this development under this Government represents a considerable improvement in the position of our vital school support staff. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her fulsome support of the amendments.
I am of course shocked that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I have reached a point of disagreement, and will make one or two points arising from what she said. She thinks that I was wrong to refer to zero-hours contracts. Of course, I accept what she said, that there presently are no zero-hours contracts in the school sector, but, as I am sure she is aware, there are zero-hours contracts in the university sector, and the fear is that they might then be introduced into the school sector.
The noble Baroness was worried about the reference to non-employees—that is, self-employed workers. Again, the problem is not so much the existing situation but fear of the future. The self-employed sector now has 5 million workers, who, on average, earn a lot less than employed workers. It is a growing sector, and the fear is that employers will resort more to the device of self-employment to avoid the consequences of employment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his thoughtful contributions. He said that he thought the inclusion of the self-employed would bring ambiguity and be unworkable, but I respectfully disagree. The point is this: if people are doing similar work but with a different legal status, similar terms should apply to them. If there are few people, or none, in that category, I cannot imagine for a moment that the negotiating body, unions or employers will wish to say anything about it. What I am suggesting by enlarging the remit of the bodies is not that they should be compelled to negotiate all the matters under Section 178, but that it is an option open to them if those parties feel that it is profitable for them to negotiate those things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was uncomfortable with my opposition to the Minister’s power to override agreements, or indeed disagreements, in the negotiating body. I point out that, in truly voluntary and free collective bargaining, it is always possible to have tripartite collective bargaining between the Government, employers and unions—but that is not what this body is. This body is bipartite, but with the addition of third parties and the power in the Minister to override any agreement that is reached. That does not seem to be compatible with proper collective bargaining.
I know your Lordships want to move on, so I will not deal with any more detail, but will make just one more point. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was against the inclusion of dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration. I make the point again that the purpose is not to impose this on the parties but to enable them to choose their own means of resolving disputes—whether that is conciliation, arbitration or some other means—and not to leave it to the Minister.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern for her thoughtful and full response. She is right, of course. I do not think she goes as far as I would like her to, but I understand the reasons she does not. I agree that what is proposed in the Bill for the SSSNB is a “considerable improvement”, to use her words, on what exists. I accept too that it is a step on the road to proper collective bargaining in due course. I am very grateful for the two meetings I had with my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I was honoured and grateful to be allowed to spend time discussing my concerns with her. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Can I seek a point of clarification on the noble Lord’s clarification, which I am very grateful for? Was his argument that extending and future-proofing—I think those were his words—this for the self-employed is because he feels that there will be more self-employed people as a consequence of this Bill?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
No, not at all. Growing self-employment has been a trend for the last 20 years, which has perhaps accelerated a bit in the last 10 years. The worry is that school employers may adopt the device of allocating work to the self-employed, rather than to employed persons. If that is the case, there ought to be room for the negotiating body to deal with that issue and the consequences of it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is one of several intended to make the Negotiating Body a bilateral collective bargaining body, in this instance to allow the industrial parties to select the Chair instead of it being a ministerial choice.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I apologise to noble Lords for inflicting my voice on them again. The amendments in this group are intended to convert the ASCNB into a collective bargaining forum and achieve the purpose we have already discussed for the SSSNB.
I mentioned earlier that there is some relevant international law. I propose now to deal with it. The UK is bound by the international treaty provisions it has ratified. That applies no matter the subject matter of the treaty obligation—whether it be trade, security, environment, labour, extradition or whatever. The obligation of conformity is not confined to the black letter of the treaty provision. It applies also to the decisions of the bodies on which the treaty has constitutionally bestowed the power of deciding whether or not a state is in compliance. If a state does not like the treaty provisions or decisions made under it, it has the right to denounce the treaty and cease to be bound by it.
The great jurist Lord Bingham made state compliance with international obligations his eighth principle of the rule of law. He said in his seminal book on the subject that
“the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Consistently with this, the current Ministerial Code binding on British Ministers places on them an
“overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations”.
The point was reinforced by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in this House on 26 November 2024, when he said of compliance with international law:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed the point in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute last week.
The relevant international law is based on two legal instruments. The first is the ILO, which since its founding in 1919 has acknowledged collective bargaining as an instrument of social justice. The 1944 ILO Declaration of Philadelphia, part of the ILO constitution, recognises the obligation to further
“the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining”.
The 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work reiterates that
“all Members … have an obligation … from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize … the principles concerning the fundamental rights”,
which include the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.
ILO Convention 98, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949, was ratified by the United Kingdom almost 75 years ago on 20 June 1950. It is one of the fundamental conventions, binding, regardless of ratification, as a consequence of membership of the ILO. Article 4 imposes the following obligation on states:
“Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.
The Government were recently reminded of that obligation by the decision earlier this year of the ILO tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, on which the UK is represented, on a complaint against the UK arising out of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deliveroo in 2023. The committee had previously stated in the case of the United Kingdom that
“whereas governments are not under a duty to enforce collective bargaining by compulsory means, they are under a duty to encourage and promote voluntary collective bargaining in good faith between the parties”.
The Bill is the opportunity to fulfil that obligation. As yet, it does not.
Turning from the global to the European, I refer to the European Social Charter of 1961. Article 6, headed “The Right to Bargain Collectively”, materially provides:
“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Parties undertake … to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on which a number of your Lordships sit, elects a supervisory body of jurists called the European Committee of Social Rights, which regularly includes eminent UK nominees, with the purpose of examining compliance by member states with the provisions of the charter which they have voluntarily ratified. Decisions of that committee are reported to the Committee of Ministers, which includes the UK Foreign Secretary.
The European Committee of Social Rights has held of the obligation of states under Article 6.2 of the charter that
“if the spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not sufficient, positive measures should be taken to facilitate and encourage the conclusion of collective agreements”
and that
“where only 30% of the total number of employees are covered by collective agreements, voluntary negotiations are not sufficiently promoted in practice”.
The level of collective bargaining coverage in the UK is now significantly below 30% but, in any event, it is clear that spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not occurring in fields that desperately need it, such as social care. The duty on the UK to promote collective bargaining, at least in these sectors, is thus triggered. The committee has also held:
“States Parties should not interfere in the freedom of trade unions to decide themselves which industrial relationships they wish to regulate in collective agreements”.
That is a matter to which the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has also turned:
“It is for the parties concerned to decide on the subjects for negotiation … Matters which might be subject to collective bargaining include the type of agreement to be offered to employees or the type of industrial instrument to be negotiated in the future, as well as wages, benefits and allowances, working time, annual leave, selection criteria in case of redundancy, the coverage of the collective agreement, the granting of trade union facilities, including access to the workplace beyond what is provided for in legislation etc.; these matters should not be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining by law”.
Yet in the subsectors of adult social care and school support staff, this Bill proposes to violate than principle. The subject matter which the two negotiating bodies are permitted to discuss is limited to that specified in the Bill, to which the Minister may unilaterally add. Indeed, as we have already discussed in relation to school support staff, their negotiating body is not permitted to discuss even the matters within its statutory remit, unless directed or expressly permitted by the Minister.
Both the social rights committee and the ILO have made it clear that self-employed workers should not be excluded from collective bargaining machinery, a matter which we discussed earlier.
I also draw attention to Article 6.3 of the charter, which I did not mention earlier. It requires that
“conciliation, mediation and/or arbitration procedures must be introduced to facilitate the settlement of labour disputes”.
The European Social Rights Committee has held that
“recourse to arbitration should be voluntary (subject to the agreement of the parties) … All arbitration systems must be independent, and the outcome of arbitration may not be predetermined by pre-established criteria. Any form of compulsory recourse to arbitration is a violation of this provision”.
Yet, under this Bill, the remit open to negotiating bodies does not permit them to agree any kind of dispute resolution procedure. Quite the contrary: as we have seen, the Minister has power to override both the agreement of the industrial parties or their disagreement, and to impose an outcome on them—in my view, a wholly impermissible form of compulsory arbitration.
There is no disputing that the UK permits collective bargaining. However, the duty on states ratifying this provision of the charter, as the UK did on 11 July 1962, is not merely to permit; the duty is to promote collective bargaining machinery. It is true that we have legal recognition machinery in the 1992 Act, Schedule A1. However, there is no mechanism in UK law to establish or support sectoral collective bargaining. This Bill is the opportunity to establish that in the many sectors crying out for it, including social care.
I turn to my amendments in this group. Amendment 181 would allow unions and employers to choose their own chair. Amendment 182 would restrict membership to persons nominated by unions and employers. Amendment 183 would restrict third parties to those agreed by unions and employers, and to ensure that they will be in a minority. Amendment 184 would allow discussion of Section 178 matters. Amendment 186 would add training and career progression dispute resolution machinery, discipline and grievance procedures, and anything else the unions and employers want to discuss, to the list of permitted topics. Amendment 187 would broaden the definition of social care worker to that in Section 20 (3) of the Courts and Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Amendment 191 would substitute, where there is failure to agree, a dispute resolution machinery in place of the unilateral power of the Minister to substitute his decision. Amendments 193, 194, 198 and 199 mirror Amendment 192 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, making the output of the process a minimum floor permitting subsequent or indeed prior agreements for more beneficial terms. Amendment 197 would bring in the self-employed, so the arguments are much the same as we have already covered.
As your Lordships will have noted, I also seek to oppose Clause 51 standing part. It gives power to permit the Minister to disapply Section 178 to the adult social care body. I will not repeat the arguments. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, in the middle of all those amendments is Amendment 185, to Clause 38, which would ensure that training and education for social care workers are clearly within the remit of the social care negotiating bodies the Bill makes provision to establish, and that they are therefore considered as part of the fair pay agreement process in the sector.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who is in her place, for her support for this amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who, regrettably, is at a funeral today. I also declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Dementia and as an Alzheimer’s Society ambassador. I am very grateful to the Alzheimer’s Society for its input into this amendment.
I do not need to tell this House that the social care workforce remains turbulent, inhibited by high vacancies, high staff turnover and limited career advancement opportunities, all of which significantly impact the quality of care that those drawing on it receive. I understand that the Government’s intention with fair pay agreements is to help address the recruitment and retention crisis in the sector, in turn supporting the continued delivery of high-quality care.
This has been reinforced in recent weeks in the Government’s Immigration White Paper, which points to proposed fair pay agreements as a means to improve domestic recruitment in response to ending overseas recruitment of care workers. With Skills for Care figures revealing that there were 131,000 vacant adult social care posts in 2023-24—almost three times the vacancy rate in the wider economy—there is no doubt that this drive to improve recruitment is necessary and that without it, our social care sector is at risk of further volatility.
However, as I highlighted during my speech at Second Reading, despite the clearly beneficial impact of training on recruitment and retention of adult social care workers, education and training are not currently specified as matters for the negotiating bodies to consider as part of the fair pay agreement process. We know from last year’s The state of the adult social care sector workforce report by Skills for Care that access to training was among the top five factors influencing the retention of adult social care staff, and that turnover rates were 7.4% lower among adult social care workers who had received training, compared with those who had not.
Despite the large numbers of those with dementia drawing on adult social care and their unique needs within this setting, there is no legal requirement for staff to undertake training in dementia, as I know from my own personal family experience. The Alzheimer’s Society is therefore calling for dementia training to be made mandatory for all adult social care staff. I support that, and I hope the Government, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, are giving serious consideration to this as part of their plans for future social care reform.
While Amendment 185 would not mandate dementia training, it would ensure that the training needs of the social care workforce are considered as part of the fair pay agreement process, which I hope will lead to improved training opportunities for staff in the sector, including training in dementia, and improved care for those receiving it.
I appreciate the indications that I received from the Minister at Second Reading—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, not the Minister responding to this group of amendments—that the scope of the negotiating bodies could be expanded through secondary legislation. I am very grateful for her letter and for her staff’s time in seriously considering this. When I read in her letter that the intention is to put this into secondary legislation and not into the Bill, I was immediately alert to the fact that I did not see any indication as to whether this would be secondary legislation in the affirmative or the negative. I hope that more information can be given in the response to this debate.
I maintain that improving training and education for social staff is so fundamental to improving quality of care, and to tackling the recruitment and retention crisis in the sector, that the Government should look again. What good reason is there not to include this in the Bill? That needs to be clarified.
On that point, training is very often just ditched when times are hard or when budgets are tight. I refer the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—to the Employment Rights Bill: Economic Analysis, published in October 2024, which I am sure is part of her bedtime reading. Under the heading “Unintended Consequences”, it says:
“Where businesses cannot absorb the increase in labour costs, they may look to pass them onto workers by reducing expenditures that benefit workers (e.g. staff training)”.
I repeat to the Minister that I am grateful for the work put in so far, but I believe that it needs to be brought up a level. I hope that she will assure me of that when she replies.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 185, to which I was very pleased to add my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on this amendment and my noble friend Lord Hendy, who spoke to his amendments in this group.
As the noble Baroness already indicated, Amendment 185 relates to training and education for the social care workforce, which is a critical imperative given the care and attention required by the people they care for. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the APPG on Dementia, and I thank the Alzheimer’s Society for its support in preparing for this debate.
Our social care workforce is vital in providing care to those who need it. However, they have been undersupported for too long. This amendment seeks to include training and education in the remit of the social care negotiating bodies that the Bill will create. These bodies will then determine the fair-play agreements in the social care sector, and, in so doing, improve training and education, which will also make a significant contribution to tackling the recruitment and retention crisis that the social care workforce faces.
However, of particular concern is the level of training and education in dementia among the adult social care workforce. The Care Quality Commission’s 2024 State of Care report highlighted dementia as a key area of concern and, specifically, that
“health and care staff do not always understand”
the specific needs of people with dementia. Many of those who, like me, have people with dementia in their families only realise this either when they are training to deal with it or when they are working with them on a daily basis.
A Nuffield Trust report from November also found that people with dementia in England are not consistently receiving good-quality social care, so this amendment seeks to build the foundations to change that, not only for people living with dementia but for all who draw on care, through the prioritisation of training and education within the workforce. That is a simple but vital aspect of ensuring that workers receive the recognition and the value that they deserve. That is what this amendment, if included in the Bill, would do. It would help in introducing opportunities for progression and development within the workforce and improving the quality of care that people receive.
I come to this debate as someone who strongly supports the Employment Rights Bill, because I believe it introduces a number of measures to increase the protection and rights of workers. In so doing, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and the Government ensure that training and education form a part of this legislation. I hope that the Government share these sentiments and see the value of the changes that this amendment would implement. I look forward to the winding-up comments from the Minister.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by mentioning that my sister and I cared for my mother in the last fortnight of her life, and we were significantly helped by carers—to whom I will be forever grateful—in that short time.
Of course, our social care workers right across the country were genuine heroes during Covid-19, and that recognition needs to continue. At the time of Covid-19, I was Secretary of State in DWP and, clearly, the workers there were carrying out tremendous acts of heroism right across the country—but there is a recognition, in a similar way to the NHS, that this drove quite a lot of burnout. However, recognising the importance of carers and the choices that people made in taking up that really important role, I felt it was absolutely vital that we tried to get better organised, to encourage people not only to stay in the sector but to join the sector. That is why I worked with the Department of Health and Social Care at the time, with my honourable friend Helen Whately.
I do not wish to lower the tone entirely, but I turn to the explanation of the creation of this negotiating body and to one of the things that I think is key. I am not at all opposed to it in principle. However, it suggests that the bargaining power of care workers has been low, partly because of low unionisation rates. This is only 20%, it is suggested, of a workforce of 1.6 million, which is about 5% of the total workforce in this country. I must admit I am somewhat sceptical about that.
I do not want to get into a huge debate about social funding. This is a challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is taking up. With her capabilities, I am sure she will find a way through in this regard. However, I think we should recognise that there are a whole bunch of employers right across the country, and that social care funding is provided for through national government, through the hands of local government and, of course, council tax payers through the social care levy. That is the key challenge that we need to recognise, and we need to consider how this negotiating body could address that.
I will apologise to my noble friend Lady Browning for not speaking on something. When I looked at my amendment—I have an amendment coming up in the next group—I de-grouped it because I was trying to differentiate thinking about the progress of social care in regard to trying to split it away from the negotiating body. Perhaps I will explain briefly why and then, in the next group, come on to what I suggest could happen instead.
I have already set out that I started working on this, getting DWP to be engaged and thinking through about swaps and similar things. Indeed, one of the things that came out of that was the care pathway on a journey after People at the Heart of Care at the end of 2021, leading to the Next Steps consultation. I would say that the care workforce pathway is working.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Perhaps I can just clarify that we were very much sighted on the fact that in education, people who are on the non-teaching staff are included in the Bill in the pay negotiating bodies. We were not clear why it should be different for social care workers.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My noble friend makes an excellent point. I must admit that I had almost to force-fit Amendment 200A, which I am coming to, into the Bill in order to be able to talk about a very valid concern about the progress and retention of social care workers in our country, recognising the absolutely vital role that they play in many care homes across the country.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning, Lady Ritchie and Lady Coffey, for adding flesh to what we are discussing here today in these amendments.
I hope we all agree that the adult social care workforce plays a vital and often undervalued role in supporting some of the most vulnerable in society, as previous speakers have underlined. Care workers show remarkable dedication, compassion and professionalism in often challenging circumstances, yet the sector continues to face high turnover, inconsistent conditions and, as we have heard, limited opportunities for training and career progression. There is growing recognition that this must change. Supporting a stable, skilled and respected workforce is essential to delivering high-quality care and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the system.
The provisions in Chapter 2, including the proposal for a social care negotiating body—that is the principle that we are discussing—are a response to that wider need for reform. They seek to introduce a more formal framework through which pay, conditions and progression can be discussed and agreed between trade unions and employers. The inclusion of statutory mechanisms for negotiation, as outlined in Clauses 37 and 44, reflects an effort to bring greater consistency and accountability to the way the workforce terms are determined. Clause 48, addressing agency workers, is a notable recognition of the diverse nature of employment in the sector and the need for fairness across the board.
It is the amendments we are discussing, not the wider situation of the country. These amendments have been brought forward to explore how these proposals might operate in practice, including the remit, independence and legal weight of any agreements. These are important questions and it is right that the House scrutinises how this framework would function and how it may be made most effective. I would welcome the Minister’s response in relation to the amendments.
While views will differ on the detail, the broader case for supporting and strengthening the adult social care workforce is widely accepted. The Bill forms one part—and only one part—of a longer-term process to address this challenge. Sustained attention to training, career development and workforce planning will be needed, alongside any structural changes introduced here.
The future of adult social care depends not only on funding or legislation but on whether people who deliver care feel valued, supported and able to build lasting careers. This should be our shared focus as this Bill progresses. I hope the Minister, when she replies, will talk about how we can value those care workers and make sure that they stay there, are educated, progress and are an addition to the values of this country and the way we work. Too often, they have been neglected. This is a chance to remedy that.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, many of my noble friends have spoken about the possible collapse of the social care system. The toxic combination of chronic underfunding and the dysfunctional market system means that thousands of elderly and disabled people do not get the care that they need. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to establish a framework to establish legally binding agreements that, at long last, would set pay, conditions and terms for workers in the adult social care sector: an adult social care negotiating body in England made up of relevant employers and trade unions.
Staff in the sector are voting with their feet. They are leaving in droves. The vacancy rate is one of the highest in the economy and 130,000 jobs remain unfilled. Low pay is endemic. Over 400,000 adult care workers live below the real living wage, and 40% of the whole workforce live below the real living wage. A quarter are living on the verge of poverty and one-tenth are living with food insecurity. That is hardly a vote of confidence in our social care system.
Perhaps the most important reason for not delaying the action that is so desperately needed rests in the costs to our National Health Service. The latest State of Care report from the Care Quality Commission stated in April this year that waits for care home beds and home-based care accounted for almost half the delays in discharging patients who had been in hospital for more than 14 days. Nearly 4,000 people were delayed on an average day. The proposed fair pay agreement for adult social care staff has the potential to do so much good. Low pay, the lack of any career ladder and limited professional recognition are all inextricably linked in the social care sector. Experienced care workers with over five years’ service are paid, on average, just 8p an hour more than a new starter. There is little or no incentive for care workers to remain in the service; there is no meaningful career progression.
I cannot support the idea, which has been floated, that the new negotiating body would not apply to providers of care in the private sector. The whole point of the proposed fair pay agreement is that it will address low pay across the whole sector, not just those who are publicly funded. It would be deeply divisive, creating a two-tier care workforce with some benefiting and others shut out.
Privately funded providers should be requested to sit on the proposed adult social care negotiating body. We need that body to cover the whole sector, not just the public sector. If it is to work and to be successful in driving up pay standards across the whole sector, it must apply to the broadest definition of care workers. The proposed fair pay agreement is the first step towards a more structured pay system that over time should enable employers to offer a career pathway into social care, rather than low-status, low-paid employment with a high turnover rate.
So many of our citizens who need social care will benefit from the suggestions in this Bill. It is the first building block to a national care service. It will help with one of the most intractable problems facing our public services. The chief executive of the National Care Forum stated:
“We welcome any measures to strengthen the rights and improve the pay, terms and conditions of the social care workforce who make a significant contribution to our economy and the lives of millions of people”.
I ask that we allow this proposal, which will do so much good, to go forward, and that any amendments are no longer pursued.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I say at the outset what an important debate this has been. We on these Benches support fair pay, decent working conditions and recognition of the vital work that social care workers do. I join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in his tributes, and welcome and thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this group. I want to say how pleased we all are that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has decided to come and deal with this issue, in a Bill for which she has no immediate responsibility but certainly does in the context of the social care negotiating body.
I had no part in deciding which group of amendments I would respond to, and I find myself in some difficulty, because the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, gave us the most brilliant exposition of the 126 years since the ILO was established in 1919 and the right to collective bargaining. However, in a way, that was directed not so much to the Minister but to his noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who, under the European Convention on Human Rights, signed to say that:
“In my view the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
Therefore, is it not the noble Baroness who should be responding to the tour de force that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy? Perhaps she has already communicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, what she would say in response.
We on these Benches cannot support a structure that hands over the steering wheel of national employment frameworks to a narrow group of trade union and employer representatives with little regard for broader public interest, service user experience or the realities of a publicly funded care system. By insisting that the chair be chosen exclusively by agreement between union officials and employer representatives, and in the event of disagreement by ACAS, these amendments would introduce unnecessary complexity and risk deadlock. By removing ministerial appointment, a crucial source of impartial leadership and accountability disappears. We cannot afford a negotiating body that stalls at the first sign of disagreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging and associating myself with the very warm words about the value of care workers on whom we rely so much. The challenges are immense, as we have heard many times and not just in this debate—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is an important as well as a very interesting debate—and this is key to how we will support the provision of social care into the future. I too look forward to the work from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and feel confident that we have Whitehall’s number one doer on the case.
On the value of care workers, I extend my thanks and appreciation for all that they do in very difficult circumstances. I can say to noble Lords and care workers across the country that that is exactly why we are bringing in the Employment Rights Bill. That is what we, the Government, are here to do.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his appreciation of my presence at the Dispatch Box. I am delighted to be—in the nicest possible way—across the Chamber from him. This is a key matter and one that is very relevant, because it is about the future of social care.
I now turn to the amendments and will then return to the more general points. On Amendment 185, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am very grateful for the engagement of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on this matter with my noble friend Lady Jones, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, has written setting out the steps we are taking on dementia training. I hope that it is useful reassurance that regulations can indeed provide for additional matters to be included in the remits of the negotiating bodies rather than being included in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, asked about procedure. I can confirm that the Bill states that any regulations to add a matter such as training to the remit of the bodies will be subject to the affirmative procedure in order that it may be fully scrutinised by Parliament. I can see that the noble Baroness is very pleased about that, and therefore I am very pleased.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie will understand that I very much appreciate the intent behind this amendment. Taken at face value, it is no comment on the importance of dementia training—to which I am very committed—but, by specifying in the Bill the extent of the bodies’ remits, it would prejudge consultation and limit the opportunity for sector engagement. That would create difficulties that we do not want to create.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised the importance of training in dementia, and its absence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I reassure them that the adult social care learning and development support scheme in England supports adult social care employers through funded training opportunities, including a range of opportunities that cover the Dementia Training Standards Framework, and we are pleased that the scheme will continue in the financial year 2025-26, backed up by up to £12 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised a question about engagement with Skills for Care. I confirm that Skills for Care is consulted with and that our working group, and task and finish groups, bring together trade unions, representative bodies of adult social care providers and other relevant stakeholders such as Skills for Care. I hope that will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who made specific reference to the role of trade unions. They do have a role; they represent and are a voice for working people, and we are extending our consultation beyond trade unions because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, rightly said, there are groups such as Skills for Care and others who also have a very helpful voice.
I turn now to Amendments 181, 182, 183, 184, 186 and 191 by my noble friend Lord Hendy. I know that he met the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, to discuss them on 3 June, and I am grateful to him for his time and engagement. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might agree with some of the points, if not all the interpretations, in each amendment.
Amendment 181 seeks to change the appointment process by making the selection of the chair subject to a public appointments process. That is not an amendment we find favour with, because the Bill as it stands will improve transparency and confidence and ensure that all the right processes are followed. We feel that that is the right way forward.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Ritchie, for their Amendment 185. I completely support the idea that training and education should be part of the remit of the adult social care negotiating body. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, touched on, training and career progression are expressly part of the remit of school support staff and it seems inexplicable that they are not part of adult social care as well.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Prentis, that the adult social care negotiating body, in establishing minimum terms and conditions, will play a key part in the improvement of the provision of social care and of course the improvement of the lives of those who provide that care. I was moved by the fact-filled description by my noble friend Lord Prentis of the need for the adult social care negotiating body in that sector.
I realised the other day that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have known each other a lot longer than I remembered. He mentioned going to the retirement dinner of Albert Blighton, formerly legal officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I was there too, but I had forgotten. Of course, I do not agree with much of what the noble Lord has said today.
As for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and a certificate in relation to the European Human Rights Convention, I have not argued that there was any incompatibility with that convention. My arguments were about incompatibility with ILO provision and the European Social Charter—two very different things. States cannot pick and choose which of the obligations binding on them they wish to abide by.
With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think he misunderstands the nature of collective bargaining—not that I have done much of it myself, but I have been present when it happens and have had a lot to do with its consequences. It is not necessarily a confrontational process; it works collaboratively. That is why it has been so successful for decades—indeed, centuries—now. I was not suggesting—and do not think it ever is—that it is a legalistic process; it is an informal process.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also perhaps misunderstood what I was saying. I was suggesting not a dominant role for trade unions but a balanced role, where trade unions and employers have equal power. It is in their mutual interests to agree future terms and conditions and so on. I say to the noble Lord, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I am not suggesting that the subject matter for negotiation should be confined to Section 178 matters, but simply that those should be permissible matters for discussion, and that parties should be allowed to resolve whatever differences may occur between them by negotiation or by a dispute resolution mechanism chosen by them.
In relation to non-employment, or the use of my word “engagement” rather than “employment”, the purpose of that is to ensure that self-employed workers in the adult social care sector are covered by the benefits of whatever negotiations emanate from the social care negotiating body. Why not? Why should they not have the benefit of minimum hours, terms and conditions, and so on? In this sector, there are a lot of self-employed workers, because employers have resorted to that device.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her full response. I disagreed with one or two points that she made. I do not think it is right to say that Section 178 of the Act is confined to local agreements; that provision in the legislation, of very long standing, applies to all collective bargaining, sectoral or local. I noted that she did not say anything about the international law obligations on which my speech centred. Nevertheless, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Registration scheme: duty to provide access(1) Social care providers must ensure that their employees have access to any registration scheme which Social Work England may establish.(2) In subsection (1), a “registration scheme” is system where social care workers’ training is centrally logged, allowing their previous training to be recognised by a new employer.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have already set out, in the debate on the previous group, my appreciation of social care workers right across our country. I said that I would try to set out in this group one of the ways that we can achieve the outcomes that the Government, and, I think, this Committee, are seeking to see: improved pay, terms and conditions for social care workers, including for the benefit of the people they help, to try to increase retention and tackle some of the challenges faced.
In my previous role, I commissioned my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith to consider in-work progression. While in DWP, I was concerned more broadly about people getting stuck in low-paid roles and what we could do to help increase their prosperity. In looking at a wide range of sectors, her commission highlighted the challenges facing the care sector right across the United Kingdom. A variety of research elements went into it. It cited research that found
“little incentive to gain qualifications in a sector viewed as low status”,
and that:
“Those working in care perceive it as involving highly skilled work, but workers tend not to view care work as a profession”.
As I referred to in the debate on the previous group, and therefore will not repeat, it set out, in effect, the care workforce pathway, which got going and has been enhanced by the current Government recognising the progress that could be made.
It used to be the case that a lot of people went into the care sector through the apprenticeship route. A decade ago, Skills for Care would cite nearly as many as 100,000, but that has significantly changed and has gradually fallen over time. Some of that might be to do with the nature and the variety of the work, which does not necessarily lend itself entirely to being appropriate for the apprenticeship levy for everybody in that sector. Last year, we ended up with about 24,000, one quarter of which were at level 2 entry, with, I hope, some of the people who had already completed level 2 securing level 3, but it represents quite a shift. It is testimony to the Department of Health having put together and worked with an Ofqual-registered qualification at level 2 as part of this new way to try to make sure that there is progress.
I agreed with one recommendation that my noble friend made, but she made a recommendation that I did not agree with. One of the challenges she set out was the hugely diverse nature of the social care sector. In financial support, as much is given to adults, as opposed specifically to pensioners, when it comes to social care. Indeed, my longest-standing friend Dawn spent most of her career as a social care worker for adults with learning disabilities. There is variety within the work that 1.6 million people in the workforce undertake every day. One of the challenges—whether you are self-employed or are moving to an agency or local authority—is that there is no way of recognising your experience and any training that you might have done. That is one of the key challenges of people leaving the sector, or getting stuck—instead of, perhaps, the sector expanding.
One of the recommendations was to emulate what happens in the construction skills certification scheme in the UK construction industry. This has been developed with a card and it shows that individual workers have transferable proof of a level of training and qualifications. When you start with a new employer in the social care sector, you would then not have to go through all the training that you have already done heaven knows how many times. If you are perfectly well skilled that is a frustrating element as well.
I do not agree with one of the recommendations. I strongly do not believe we should be regulating this sector. I think that would become more of a barrier. There are now many careers and jobs that are regulated by some separate authority. My noble friend made this recommendation on the basis that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have done exactly that. Anyone who wants to be a social care worker has to become registered and be regulated by, for example, Social Care Wales or the Scottish Social Services Council. I am not convinced that we should be getting into that in this sector.
However, it could be possible—perhaps not for the negotiating body we have just spoken about, and I was suggesting why I did not think it would be appropriate—for Social Work England to establish something if people wanted to register and get their training recognised so that they had an equivalent to the construction scheme card. Again, the workers under that are not regulated by the construction industry in that regard. However, it has become a useful tool so that employers and workers are clear on what they can bring to the next employer they are seeking to have.
It will vary around the country but, quite often, social care workers will be contracted by multiple agencies. This recognises the flexibility of work that is available and wanted. This can sometimes lead to significant differential pay rates. Quite often, when working for a local authority, the pay will be considerably less than working for a private agency. It is important that we allow people to have this flexibility but, dare I say it, without the draconian regulation a whole body starts to bring about.
That is why I have put forward the suggestion that, if Social Work England chooses to establish such a scheme, any employees must be able to register training and any existing certificates with Social Work England to facilitate their personal choices on how to progress in work. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I was unfortunately delayed in getting here for the start of the previous group of amendments. I had added my name to the amendments on education. However, I am delighted to be here. I would have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, if I had realised what she was going to say.
I reinforce the need for education and monitoring what people do. The social care workforce is absolutely amazing. Its members work across an enormous range of people. When I chaired the National Mental Capacity Forum over six years, it was very evident that some people wanted to and had great talent for working with people with impaired capacity, and they wanted to learn how to do it better. There were others who did not like working with people with impaired capacity or people who had early dementia or even mental health issues, but they were extremely good at working with people with physical disabilities and impaired mobility. They were very good at manual handling, lifting and so on.
Over many decades, I have worked with social care workers in my field of palliative care. In the report of the palliative care commission that we wrote recently, we recognised the important role of many of these workers. When they look after people in their own home, they are often the person who spots deterioration first. Very often, patients will confide in them because they do not have the mantle of power that nurses and doctors have, and people speak very openly to them. They understand the problems and fears that people have in themselves and their lives. But they can see what is happening only when there is continuity of care—when they have seen the person before and will see them again.
I have to defend Social Care Wales; it has helped having a registration system because it has improved the perception of the status of people working in the field. When looking at this in detail in my field, we found that, although their time in post was transient, they often moved to a different employer. Although they did not remain with one employer, they would take their skills and what they had learned with them.
It has struck me over the years that this is a workforce thirsty for knowledge, skills and education, yet the group is not normally included among those considered as educated. When I first set up the hospice in Cardiff, it was the carers and kitchen staff who came in on their days off because they wanted to learn. Very often, because I had worked with them for 20 years or so, they knew best of all when I was worried about something and when to trigger calling me out of hours, because they had a whole set of skills.
Registering those skills will be very important in allowing career progression and recognition and allowing people in this workforce to work in the domains in which they have the best personality and skill set that suits them—where they feel appreciated and know that they are rewarded emotionally as well as financially. Some people are happy to drive around from one house to another in the ghastly traffic of the outer London suburbs or in cities. Others do not want to do that; they want longer one on one. Some are better working with disturbed young people or people with addictions. If we can have a way of recognising and building on that, we can go a very long way to improving the overall security of this very important workforce, which has, sadly, been tremendously undervalued across our society until now.
It was heartening to hear the Minister summing up on the previous group. I was absolutely delighted to have my name on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and to hear that the training will be set out via regulations under the affirmative resolution, which I think was going to be our next negotiating point when we were discussing what to do next. I hope that, with these amendments at different points in the Bill, we might find a way forward to get something on education and training recognised for the specific areas that people are in, so that they can gain credit for it, personally and in terms of career progression.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak because, in a sense, this is a continuation of previous amendments. I want to put in a word for this amendment, which recognises that there should be a registration scheme so that peoples’ talents, education and training can be recognised across the country. It is important to give them the credit for that accreditation and to use their talents. This amendment adds more to what we have already spoken about, because it provides a scheme that helps the patient and the client, as well as the care worker, in fulfilling needs. I hope the Minister will take account of this and include it in her reply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Coffey for her amendment and for her thorough and comprehensive introduction to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her perspective and experience, which are very valuable contributions to this debate.
This is a measured and constructive idea. As we have heard, the social care workforce is highly mobile, and too often valuable training is overlooked or repeated when someone moves to a new role. A centralised system that records training could easily help ensure that skills are recognised across the sector, improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary duplication. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, in many cases a unique expertise would be brought that deserves to be recognised. It would also show respect for the professional development of care workers. It would signal that their time, effort and learning are worth tracking and carrying forward and are not lost at the point when they change jobs.
I of course acknowledge that the practical arrangements for such a scheme would need careful planning, but the principle is sound. Enabling continuity in workforce development would support retention, raise standards and bring consistency to a fragmented sector. I seriously hope that the Minister is listening.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on Amendment 200A. I certainly can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I am listening very closely. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which would require social care providers to ensure that their employees have access to any scheme logging training achievements that Social Work England may establish. Let me say at the outset that I understand the intent of the amendment, which is to give care workers development and extend their skills. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Palmer, said, this would contribute to what this Bill seeks to do, which is to improve retention, the quality of work and the regard for care workers, and encourage recruitment, among many other very positive outcomes. However, unfortunately, the amendment does not do the job that I know is intended, because Social Work England does not regulate the work of social care workers, but only that of social workers. The amendment as drafted gives us difficulty, but I do completely understand what it tries to do.
Let me respond to a number of the points that were made. There are currently no plans to add to the existing regulation of care workers in the sector undertaken by CQC, but let me refer to the care workforce pathway, which may be of interest and assistance to a number of the noble Lords who contributed. The care workforce pathway is the first universal career structure for the adult social care workforce. On 9 April this year—not so long ago—my department published the expansion and revision of the care workforce pathway, which includes the crucial role categories for registered and deputy managers and personal assistants, as well as the new enhanced care worker role. That speaks to some of the issues the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about the social care workforce. When we talk about the social care workforce, this is a wide group; it is a team of people, and they are all working to support whoever is in receipt of their care.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—in particular, how we recognise experience and training—I completely take the point. I can give the assurance that the department is already undertaking work on skills and learning and developing a digital skills record, which will provide a permanent and verifiable record of skills and achievements for members of the adult social care workforce. Most importantly, to the point raised by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, it can be shared with new or potential employers, which can help to reduce unnecessary duplication of training and make taking on new recruits faster, which is key. So, we are all in extreme agreement about the importance of training for the social care workforce, if not about the actual letter of the amendment.
On regulations being able to provide for other matters relating to employment, as we discussed in the previous group in respect of Amendment 185, the Bill already sets out that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure in respect of matters that will be included in the negotiating bodies’ remits, which can of course include training and other matters. As a gentle bit of clarification for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I was making clear in the previous group that any regulations in this regard are subject to the affirmative procedure. I was not being as specific as I know she hoped I would be, but it is important to make that position a bit clearer. So, on any matter within its remit, the negotiating body could determine employee entitlements, which could be incorporated into relevant workers’ contracts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about apprenticeships. Just last week, the Department for Education announced the launch of a health and social care foundation apprenticeship, set to begin from August 2025, which I am sure we will all welcome. This will offer young people a paid route into the health and adult social care sectors; I will not be alone in very much welcoming that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about professional development and transferring across jobs. That principle is certainly being included in our health and social care sector, in respect of the digital skills record. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, this is a teamwork approach based around whoever needs the care. It requires different skills, which can be transferrable across different jobs, so the noble Lord makes a fair point.
With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will agree to withdraw Amendment 200A.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for contributing and for again recognising the great value we attach to social care workers across the country. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that I am not trying to do down Social Care Wales at all; it was more that there is almost a regulation approach, which I am keen to avoid and which I believe is not entirely necessary. I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom in that regard.
I am really pleased that the Minister has flagged this digital record, which I was not aware of. I am really excited to hear about that. I had already referenced the care pathway in the previous group, and it is great to see it being built on, which is something the sector was keen to achieve.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(10A) But regulations under section 84A may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement, or an amendment of an agreement, to come into force—(a) before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement, or(b) in a case where—(i) the provision is for the purpose of giving effect to an amendment of an agreement, and(ii) the United Kingdom would not be required to give effect to the amendment until it had been ratified by the United Kingdom,before the United Kingdom has ratified the amendment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that regulations under new section 84A of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement, or to an amendment of an agreement that requires separate ratification, to come into force before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement or amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 54 at page 72, line 16.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
“Chapter 4Industrial undertakingsRestriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakingsIn section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings), at the end of subsection (1) insert “(but voluntary work on a heritage railway or heritage tramway is not employment in an industrial undertaking)”.”
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 201 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank him for agreeing to put his name to it—I am delighted, and I look forward to his speech.
The amendment’s purpose is to remove what is, in effect, an unintended consequence of a piece of outdated legislation on the training, education and skills development for a group of young volunteers, particularly young female volunteers, on heritage railways. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 was passed in a very different era, some 33 years before the first preserved railway started operation using volunteers. It makes it unlawful to employ young people under 16 on railways and—by an extension through later legislation—that work now includes unpaid work by volunteers.
No prosecution has ever been brought under Section 1 of the 1920 Act, and the provision languished unknown on the statute book for many years until it was brought to light in 2015. The Heritage Railway Association—I declare an interest as its president—was so concerned at the implications that it sought counsel’s opinion, which confirmed that the 1920 Act remained in force and that it was unlawful to allow volunteers under 16 to undertake work on a heritage railway.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail held an inquiry into the subject and published a report with recommendations in July 2018. On 15 July 2022, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that sought to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act. My Bill passed all its stages through your Lordships’ House unamended and received widespread support across the Chamber. Disappointingly, however, the Bill made no progress in the Commons.
Subsequent meetings with, among others, the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road produced some helpful assurances—namely, that any prosecutions would rely not on this outdated Act but on more recent legislation, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the safety management regulations produced following the Railways Act 1993. Officials were unwilling to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act, partly because, in their view, it was unnecessary, and partly because it might have unforeseen implications on other activities, although those were never specified. To address this point, my Amendment 201 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the 1920 Act to heritage railways and tramways, rather than to repeal the whole section.
Although they were helpful, the HSE and ORR views do not solve the basic problem if the 1920 Act remains on the statute book. That is because, even if a prosecution may not be brought by official bodies, it could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young person, regardless of the assurances given. Heritage railway managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add my support to Amendment 201, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to which I have added my name in an expression of cross-party support for this very sensible endeavour. In doing so, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his tenacity on this issue, as well as to the hard work over many years by the Heritage Railway Association and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail, of which I am a member.
As the noble Lord outlined, he has been campaigning on this issue, along with those colleagues, for a number of years, including through the Private Member’s Bill that he brought in the previous Parliament. It was debated in this House when I was Heritage Minister but was responded to for the then Government by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She, and indeed all the noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate on that Private Member’s Bill, spoke very sympathetically about it. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spoke also with fondness of the Kent and East Sussex Railway, which passes very close to where she lives. Speaking from the Labour Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, who also mentioned the Talyllyn Railway and the Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway, said in her remarks from the Opposition Front Bench then:
“I have little doubt that achieving and delivering the desired objectives will eventually be managed, whether it is through this Bill or by the Government’s hand”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1724.]
Sadly, that “eventually” is still outstanding, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of this Bill to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others have been campaigning for so long.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very clearly the legal position as it stands, as well as very powerfully the beneficial impact that heritage railways have in communities up and down the country: the social skills that they provide to young volunteers; the employment that they offer in rural areas; the linchpin that they often are to the visitor economy in their parts of the United Kingdom.
It is very welcome that, as the noble Lord highlighted, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have made clear that they would not seek to enforce the 1920 Act to prevent children, women or young people volunteering on heritage railways. But the point, as the noble Lord rightly said, is that this confusing provision remains on the statute book. That has a potentially chilling effect for the voluntary organisations that look after our heritage railways. They are dependent on volunteers, not just for restoring and running locomotives, welcoming the many visitors from around the world who come to this country to enjoy them, but also the volunteer trustees and custodians who have to get their heads around the legal and regulatory position in which those organisations are operating. They take their duties in relation to the safety of the staff and visitors to heritage rail very seriously indeed, and the Heritage Railway Association does excellent work in providing advice and guidance to its member railways. But we should do our bit as legislators to make the job of all those volunteers easier by making sure that the law is up to date and clearly understood.
Amendment 201 does not seek to repeal the 1920 Act but to amend it, to put beyond doubt that it does not prohibit women, young persons and children from volunteering on our heritage railways and heritage tramways. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred in the previous exchanges he has had with many Governments that one of the arguments against doing this is “unintended consequences”. I have seen that many times myself in the briefings that I was given as a Minister at the government Dispatch Box. Often unintended consequences are also unspecified ones. It is hard to think what the unintended consequences might be, but the noble Lord has very sensibly drawn Amendment 201 very tightly in order to obviate that problem, so I hope the Government will look favourably upon it.
We all want to encourage volunteering, not just to help these cherished organisations to continue to bounce back from the pandemic and the challenging time that they had during Covid-19 and the challenges they face in relation to the supply of coal; their very purpose is to pass on to future generations an appreciation of our industrial past, the vital role that the railways played in the history of our nation, and to use the scientific and engineering advances of the past to inspire new generations to come up with world-changing advances of their own. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, some 22,000 volunteers are involved in keeping our heritage railways going, but too few of them are women or young people. The sector very much wants to welcome volunteers from an ever-wider background, and this piece of more than 100 year-old legislation stands in the way of their valiant efforts.
This is the year in which we are celebrating Railway 200, the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington, in my native north-east. I am very pleased to see my noble friend Lord Mendoza in his place. Historic England, which he chairs, is among the many organisations that are supporting Railway 200 with great enthusiasm to inspire new generations to get involved in our heritage railways but also to inspire them in the exploits of the future.
So, as we mark that important 200th anniversary, I hope we can finally take the opportunity to amend this law, which is already more than 100 years old and which has caused confusion for too long. I know that the Minister has a background in rail, and I hope he will look favourably on this amendment from his noble friend and agree to discuss with both of us how we might take this opportunity, finally, to solve the problem that he has been seeking to address for so long.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I certainly do not have the expertise that he has in heritage railways, but steam railways are an important part of this country’s heritage and, as each year passes, that importance surely grows. We are getting closer to a time when there will be no one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life. As well as being an enjoyable activity for interested and enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, says, in supporting our heritage—and support for our heritage is something that this Government have pledged to give. This is an instance that shows the world of work in all its manifestations as a very varied one, including voluntary work undertaken by young people. I hope that the Government show some flexibility in this regard and accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall also briefly support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has made the case very well, well supported by my friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The noble Lord., Lord Faulkner, will recall how we worked together to save Thomas the Tank Engine when we were having difficulty getting fuel for the heritage railways. I always like to take the opportunity of encouraging this extraordinary bit of our heritage, and I think this very simple and minimal amendment would help with that.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, I also support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have been pre-declared by my noble friend Lord Parkinson as the chairman of Historic England, but I am glad to see that we also have the chairman of English Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, here on the other side. If I can give the heritage argument, which has been made already, one of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need, to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.
The heritage railways are no less a part of the heritage sector. In fact, they are a very important part of it. When I was commissioner for culture during the Covid period, we tried as much as we could to send a lot of money to the heritage railways to make sure that they were maintained and could survive that terrible period for them when they could not have any visitors. We want to do as much as we can to prevent there being barriers for young people to come into this sector and learn these trades and be able to volunteer, help and learn.
Next week, I have the great pleasure of going up to the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 celebration, where we are going to be opening a series of murals made by artists along a walking trail. The point of this is exactly that we are bringing in young artists from the area, working with their local communities, to provide fantastic, illustrative visual content along the trail to attract young people and others to come into the celebrations for the 200th anniversary of the railways. We want to encourage them, and then, of course, we would like them to come and volunteer.
This whole celebration, as we know, has been put on by Darlington Borough Council, Durham County Council and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, all very proud indeed that this is the very site of the beginning of the railways, the technology that changed the world. We want these young people to come and learn the skills, technology and heritage. Perhaps the Minister could see his way to accepting this very minor, tiny change suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that would really help. I commend him for having looked at this for such a long time. I also commend my noble friend Lord Parkinson for an excellent speech as well, so thank you.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whom I have known for many years, mainly through aspects of the railways. There was a programme on television a little while ago showing youth workers working on the railway. They did everything, including collecting the tickets; they did everything but drive the trains. It was really great. The national memories will die. Who will remember “The Titfield Thunderbolt”, the film about a local group who took over a railway? I still look on my railway to see the Pullman car that does not exist.
Heritage railways are important. It is important to make sure that young people know what heritage railways are and are employed—or used—within the railway system. It will give them education as well as everything else. This is a strange addition to the Employment Rights Bill that I would never have thought of, so my compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for including it. I hope that this rather unusual addition to the Bill will be considered by the Minister before Report.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for introducing a fascinating debate. My own relationship with heritage railways goes back some 45 years, to when I participated in all those wonderful railways in north Wales. I took my daughter Daisy to the top of Snowdon in one of these wonderful train rides. Sadly, the Western Mail had a picture of Daisy and me driving the locomotive, illegally, with the headline, “Daisy drives Dad around the bend”. I shall never forget that.
Therefore, like my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Mendoza, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, I approach this debate with some degree of positive expectation, because the noble Lord, Lord Katz, is going to reply. If ever there was anyone who would understand the need for this amendment, it is the noble Lord, Lord Katz. Whether his brief will allow him to show that level of understanding, we will have to wait and see.
This amendment brings welcome clarity and common sense to an area where outdated legislative definitions risk interfering with well-established and valued community practice. Heritage railways and tramways are not industrial undertakings in the conventional sense. They are, overwhelmingly, charitable or volunteer-led organisations dedicated to preserving history, offering educational experiences and engaging communities, often in rural or heritage-rich areas. This amendment recognises the important distinction between exploitive industrial labour and safe, structured, voluntary participation. Many young people who volunteer on heritage railways gain practical skills, develop a sense of responsibility and form connections across generations. It is, for many, their first taste of civic engagement and teamwork and is often a path into engineering, public service or the arts.
By inserting this narrow and well-defined exemption into the 1920 Act, this clause would ensure that young volunteers can continue to participate safely and legally in activities that benefit not only themselves but the broader public. Importantly, this does not in any way dilute protections against child labour or weaken employment law. It simply makes sure that our legal framework does not unintentionally penalise or prohibit what is clearly a public good.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, my reputation seems to precede me on this amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for tabling Amendment 201 and have enjoyed a slight diversion in subject matter on the Employment Rights Bill. It is truly a pleasure to be able to continue the discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Faulkner about the railways for many years, both inside and outside this House. My noble friend is a true champion of heritage railways across the whole piece, not simply on this issue. I pay tribute to his role as president of the Heritage Railway Association.
It has been fantastic to hear from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendoza and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, all of whom extolled the virtues of heritage railways in providing a positive way of involving young people in transport, industry and civic engagement—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was just saying—as well as contributing to the tourist sector and the Government’s mission for growth. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke very strongly about that, and, as he pointed out, it is the 200th anniversary of the railway this year. We are doing a lot to commemorate that, and heritage railways will have their own role in that. I pay special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for being the first person to out me as a rail nerd in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also had that pleasure.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, took us on a little tour d’horizon of the Private Member’s Bill debate we had in this House on this topic a few years ago, and mentioned a number of heritage railways. I can speak of the pleasure I had as a young child travelling on the Ruislip Lido railway, which was small in scale but mighty in reputation for those of us in north-west London. The noble Lord is right to point to the virtues of heritage railways, both as an economic activity and in individual engagement.
As a Government, we recognise and support the valuable opportunities young people have through volunteering to do a wide range of different work activities, including on heritage railways. Obviously, it is important that these things are carried out in a safe way, with employers, organisers and volunteers supervising activities to make sure that risks are properly controlled. To give some background, I will say that noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for regulating health and safety at work, but, in the case of the heritage railways, the Office of Rail and Road is the enforcing authority. Both these regulators have considered carefully what powers they have and how these would be applied in the case of young people aged between 14 and 16 volunteering on a heritage railway.
The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to, is a long-standing piece of legislation intended to prohibit the employment of children carrying out high-risk work, such as construction in industrial settings. To be honest, amending or repealing it would not be a straightforward matter.
The law protecting children in the UK is also a complex area, and this amendment touches on not only health and safety protections but other legislation and local authority by-laws. These are all devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and this amendment would impose changes there too. The 1920 Act is old legislation; amending it should be considered only after a thorough review of the impact on other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences. It is worth pointing out that the primary legislation governing child employment, including light work, is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Amending or repealing the 1920 Act would still leave the 1933 Act in place, which—together with any by-laws made under it by local authorities—limits children to undertaking only light work. So repealing the 1920 Act could have unintended consequences across a number of sectors, and a full impact assessment would be required.
As we have heard, modern health and safety legislation does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to the Heritage Railway Association survey, which demonstrated that there are around 800 under 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways across the country. There may be activities that are unsuitable for young volunteers to carry out—for example, safety-critical tasks such as train diving—but I am pleased to say that both regulators are very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to determine what sorts of activities would be safe, appropriate and suitable for young volunteers aged 14 to 16 to perform on the railways.
Of course, regulators should, and do, take a proportionate approach to enforcement action. It is worth noting that the last time the 1920 Act was used to support health and safety enforcement was in 2009. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester told us, there have been no prosecutions under the 1920 Act, either of public bodies or private individuals, which proves that the status quo is not absolutely terrible.
The aim of this amendment is to remove any barriers to allow children to gain valuable experience volunteering on heritage railways and tramways. Nobody wants to see more young men and women developing an interest and, indeed, a career on the railway more than I do. It is not clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this legislation is creating any barriers and, as we know, many heritage railways run very successfully with young people volunteering in a wide range of activities to support those ventures.
Both the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive remain very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association to develop additional guidance and, possibly, examples of good practice to ensure that young volunteers can continue to work safely in heritage railway settings. While this is a sensible and proportionate way forward to address this issue, I have heard the strength of opinion on this matter from across the Committee. I am more than happy and willing to facilitate a meeting with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—other noble Lords may be interested—with the HRA, DfT, ORR and HSE to further pursue this issue. Without making any further commitments, I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment for now.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister has his meeting with the Members of this House who are interested in this issue, I think he will need to hold it in quite a large room. I am very gratified by the strength and quantity of support that there has been for this amendment and issue from across the Chamber.
I intend to take up the Minister’s kind offer and I hope we can do that before we reach Report. If, by then, it is possible for there to be an understanding of how the law can be interpreted or possibly changed, it may not be necessary to come back on Report. However, I think the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on Report, particularly in view of the very strong support in the Chamber this afternoon, if we do not have a solution by then.
Meanwhile, I thank everybody who has taken part. I thank my noble friend the Minister; my co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; and all the other noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Sectoral collective bargaining(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the establishment of Statutory Joint Industrial Councils.(2) The regulations shall provide that—(a) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall be composed of equal numbers of—(i) nominees of employers’ associations (or nominees of employers) which appear to ACAS to represent employers in the sector, and(ii) nominees of independent trade unions which appear to ACAS to represent workers in the sector,(b) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall have the function of conducting collective bargaining to—(i) establish levels and rates of remuneration (including pensions), terms, conditions and other benefits for those who work in the particular sector of the economy;(ii) determine any other matter within the scope of section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (collective agreements and collective bargaining);(iii) formulate its constitution and procedural arrangements including a dispute resolution procedure; (iv) resolve any other matter which the Statutory Joint Industrial Council desires to consider,(c) any agreements reached by a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or a subsequent contract or collective agreement makes more favourable provision,(d) it is for the Secretary of State (in the light of advice from ACAS) to determine what constitutes a sector of the economy for the purposes of establishing a Statutory Joint Industrial Council, and(e) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council may only be made following consultation with—(i) nominees of employers’ associations (and/or nominees of employers) which appear to ACAS to represent employers in the sector, and(ii) nominees of independent trade unions which appear to ACAS to represent workers in the sector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to enable regulations to be laid for sectoral collective bargaining in particular sectors of the economy. The concept of the Statutory Joint Industrial Council is taken from s.90 and Schedule 8, Employment Protection Act 1975, reproduced in Part II of the Wages Councils Act 1979.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for supporting my Amendment 203. It is designed to give the Secretary of State power to establish, after consultation, a national statutory joint industrial council in any sector of the economy which appears to him appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked me to give her apologies to the Committee for having had to leave.
Amendment 203 is not intended to be mandatory; it is purely discretionary, leaving it up to the Secretary of State as to whether or not he or she wishes to institute a statutory joint council. The negotiating bodies that we have already discussed this afternoon are, without doubt, an improvement on the current situation, especially in light of my noble friend Lord Prentis’s earlier speech on adult social care.
In these circumstances, I regret that I take the role of Oliver Twist and ask for more. But the fact is that many sectors are crying out for sectoral minimum terms set by negotiation—social care and not just for adults, agriculture in England, hospitality, office cleaning, food delivery, parcel delivery, warehousing, garment manufacture, seafaring, bus services, and so on. There are other groups, such as teachers, where there is established collective bargaining across the sector but not on pay. The omission from the Bill of a power to establish sectoral collective bargaining in any sector seems inexplicable.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 322 in this group, which requires the Secretary of State, after the establishment of the new arrangements to deliver fair pay in the social care sector, to set out a timetable and process for an assessment of whether this approach could deliver similar benefits in tackling labour market problems in other sectors of the economy. The assessment should also take account of the process of establishing the school support staff negotiating body, in effect restoring arrangements abolished in 2010 by the coalition Government.
Setting up this new machinery in social care will be a major step forward in addressing the crisis in this sector. Low pay and poor working conditions are endemic across the sector, contributing to record levels of staff turnover and unfilled vacancies. This badly affects those who need care services and those who provide them. But this will be no simple matter establishing an entirely new bargaining structure for the first time in this part of the economy. All the parties—the Government, the employers and the trade unions—will need to navigate a number of significant complexities to establish this new body.
How should the membership of both the employer and the trade union sides be constituted? What should be the practical working arrangements to bring the parties together to work constructively to address the huge challenges faced? Will there be resistance in the sector to the changes coming out of this initial process? If so, how can they be overcome to establish the new body with the credibility and authority it will need if it is to become an enduring positive part of the social care landscape? This will be a learning process for all involved, and this amendment is intended to ensure that the learning is effectively captured from the process to inform the consideration of whether similar fair pay agreements could deliver benefits and tackle labour market problems in other sectors.
Agreements covering the terms and conditions across a sector exist in our major public services. In the private sector, as recorded in my register of interests, I also serve on the board of the JIB, the Joint Industrial Board, in the electrotechnical part of the construction industry, which brings together the employers’ body, the Electrical Contractors’ Association, with Unite the Union.
Working together, they maintain the core collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions in that part of the economy. They also work together in delivering a hugely valuable card scheme, recognising the key skills of the individuals working in the sector. This was referred to in the earlier debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. In addition, they provide an effective dispute resolution process for member firms and workers in the industry with a very high success rate.
Lessons can be learned in considering the possibility for other sectors from all these different arrangements. This is not to suggest that establishing new sectoral bargaining arrangements more widely in the economy is some kind of magic bullet, but in sectors with low pay, high turnover, recruitment and retention difficulties, and demonstrably inadequate investment in skills, they have the potential to play a part in transforming sectors that currently appear to have a labour market characterised by a race to the bottom to ones that build success based on decent pay and high labour standards. So, once the new social care body has been successfully established, let us develop a considered process, consulting all the relevant parties—employers, unions, ACAS—to learn the lessons and assess whether there are other sectors that could achieve similar benefits from such an approach. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 322 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Barber and Lord Monks, who regrets he cannot be in his place. It addresses the same principle as the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hendy: extending collective bargaining is a common good.
I strongly welcome Labour’s commitment enshrined in the Bill to introduce a fair pay agreement in social care. As we have heard, social care staff put their health on the line during the pandemic to care for our loved ones, and it is only right that they should be front of the queue for a fair pay agreement. But that cannot be the sum total of our ambition. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government make a timely assessment of other sectors that could benefit too.
There are around 4 million low-paid and insecure workers in Britain today. During the pandemic, many of these workers were classified as key workers—the people who kept Britain running in the toughest of times. They remain essential to our collective security, but their terms and conditions do not always reflect this. Very often, dominant companies in the sectors where they are employed could and should pay more but instead look to squeeze and undercut smaller companies that want to do the right thing.
There is little incentive to invest in new tech or equipment, which is essential to boosting productivity when labour is so cheap. As we know, young people are on the sharp end with over one-third of UK graduates employed in jobs well below their qualification level, representing an enormous waste of talent. Organisations from the Resolution Foundation to the Low Pay Commission have already documented which jobs and industries are both holding down workers’ aspirations and holding back productivity gains. The Government can use their convening power to bring employers and unions together to bargain for a better deal, not just on pay but with progression, training and skills too.
Collective bargaining is based on the simple premise that workers can achieve more together than we can ever achieve alone. In the UK, we have a national minimum wage. There is also an independent and voluntary real living wage, calculated on the real cost of living. In my book, though, the definition of a fair wage is different: a wage is only fair when workers have a collective say over it and agree it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the role of collective bargaining and particular proposals concerning a social care negotiating body. At this late hour, I do not intend to repeat the detailed points already made in the earlier group, but I take this opportunity—and I hope the Minister listens to this—to recognise the Government’s ongoing work to address the significant challenges facing the social care sector. These are complex issues, and the sector continues to face real pressures on workforce stability, recruitment and pay.
Amendment 322, which touches on fair pay agreement arrangements in social care and the possibility of their broader application, reflects one approach to addressing those concerns. While views will differ on the precise mechanisms and scope of reform, it is important that the Government continue to explore options to improve outcomes for both workers and those who rely on care services.
Having listened to the previous speakers, I wondered, “Gosh, am I the only one who is not in a trade union?” It seems that collective bargaining is about the views not just of the trade union but of people the gathered together who are not necessarily trade unionists. I feel uncomfortable that the views of the trade unions will affect the Government’s view of this. Collective bargaining is good; I am all for it. The general reduction in trade union membership has affected the ability of collective bargaining, but very often collective bargaining produces some benefit for those who have been part of it. Those working in any sector in the country know that one person’s benefit is very often less of a benefit for another person, and there is possibly less employment because wages have gone up. The current collective bargaining in the medical world will have a knock-on effect, and we have to think about that. I am all for collective bargaining and people getting better conditions and pay for the job, but thought has to be given to the knock-on effect.
We on these Benches note the intention behind these amendments and the reference to international frameworks and obligations. At this stage, we remain neutral on their detail, but we support continued dialogue on how to strengthen the resilience and sustainability of the social care workforce. I look forward to hearing, when the Minister replies and on Report, how the Government intend to do that. Collective bargaining will probably be part of it, but it is a much wider issue than purely that.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I am not a trade unionist, but I am very aware that there are sectors of the economy that are not unionised. Can the Minister inform the House whether there are sectors that are disadvantaged in terms of wage levels, and whether there are plans to unionise them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked at some length about delivering a new deal for working people. He ranged fairly freely, so I might, too.
Did noble Lords opposite notice that a report published yesterday showed that there are now 150,000 fewer jobs since the Government took power? It is all very well delivering a new deal for working people, but there will be fewer of them, and this Bill will contribute to that. Noble Lords may not have seen it because it has only just come out, but a British Retail Consortium survey has just been published which shows—I am sure we will return to this theme next week—that half of retail directors now think they will reduce hiring, and 70% say the ERB will have a negative impact on their business.
Frankly, I am slightly staggered at the noble Lord’s Amendment 260, which seeks to return us to various EU standards, given that EU unemployment is, of course, generally significantly higher than it is in this country. Is that what the noble Lord aspires to? I am sure he does not, but that is how it looks.
The proposal to create statutory joint industrial councils raises significant concerns, not least the proliferation of new public bodies at a time when government and regulators are already stretched. Each of these councils would require administrative infrastructure, governance mechanisms, sector-specific expertise and ongoing support from both ACAS and the Secretary of State. This approach risks duplicating existing frameworks. We already have voluntary collective bargaining structures, recognised trade unions and sectoral engagement mechanisms in many industries. Superimposing a statutory model could complicate rather than enhance industrial relations, particularly in sectors where informal or local agreements are working effectively.
There is also the issue of flexibility. The statutory model risks creating rigid sectoral definitions that may not reflect the realities of modern hybrid or cross-sector employment. The labour market today does not always fit neatly into traditional categories, and it is unclear how the Secretary of State, even with ACAS guidance, would determine sectors without inadvertently excluding or misclassifying employers and workers. We must not overlook the potential for conflict or delay. Setting up these councils, negotiating procedures and achieving consensus across large and diverse sectors could slow down progress on pay and conditions, rather than speeding it up.
That is not an argument against collective bargaining. It is an argument for targeted, effective solutions that reflect the complexity of today’s economy, not a revival of structures drawn from legislation that is nearly half a century old. The world has changed. Where stronger bargaining is needed, let us work through existing mechanisms and invest in enforcement, rather than defaulting to the creation of statutory councils that may struggle to function as intended. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Barber of Ainsdale for Amendments 203, 257, 260 and 322. I hope, despite my noble friend Lord Hendy’s concerns, that he recognises that this Bill is a major step forward in delivering a new deal for working people, exactly in the way our manifesto and the King’s Speech set out. I would also say that this is only the first step in our proposals, as we have made clear all along that the “make work pay” programme will, over time, roll out to a whole set of other issues we have flagged up as we have gone through this debate.
Turning to Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, I am pleased to be having the debate on sectoral collective bargaining and to set out the Government’s commitment to supporting it through the introduction of fair pay agreements in social care and the school support staff negotiating body, which we have just debated in detail. We want to ensure that the labour market works for everyone. A key aspect of this is allowing workers to participate in collective bargaining to improve pay and conditions. However, where labour markets are operating effectively or where existing collective agreements are working well, the Government recognise that sectoral collective bargaining may not be the best solution—I think this was the point the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was making.
The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to establish statutory joint industrial councils in unspecified areas without parliamentary scrutiny or appropriate safeguards. We are committed to starting with fair pay agreements in the social care sector to address the stark and specific issues in the vital sector, which we have already debated. As part of our ongoing policy work, we are exploring how future sectors could benefit from sectoral collective bargaining. However, we first want to learn from this process to improve our policy approach and ensure that future sectoral collective bargaining arrangements most effectively respond to the complexities of the modern workforce. In the meantime, I assure my noble friend that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining and recognise the positive contribution it can make to the British economy.
Amendment 257 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy would add duties of promoting collective bargaining to ACAS’s remit. An existing ACAS code of practice provides guidance on the disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend said, and I am afraid we will have to disagree on this. We do not support the amendment; we think it is important that ACAS maintains its independence and impartiality between employers and unions. We are concerned that the current status could be compromised by this amendment.
On Amendment 260 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, we have debated the school support staff negotiating body and the social care negotiating bodies. A benefit of these sectoral bodies will be broad sectoral agreements. We expect that many workers in these sectors will be able to benefit from collective agreements for the first time. We intend to learn from the first fair pay agreement process in social care and the SSSNB, before considering rolling out agreements in other areas, as I have said.
Additionally, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult on and bring forward this action plan within six months. It is important that such policy matters have enough time for consideration, and we are keen that employer organisations and trade unions prioritise the consultations committed to in Make Work Pay, which will follow Royal Assent to the Bill.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular my noble friends Lord Barber, Lady O’Grady and Lord Monks for their Amendment 322, which I support. I support any machinery for extending the hearing of the worker’s voice. My preference would be for collective bargaining rather the negotiating body model in the Bill, but if we cannot have the first, let us have the second.
I had the pleasure of spending time with the JIB, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barber. It is a good example of successful sectoral collective bargaining. Earlier this afternoon, I tried to outline the benefits of collective bargaining. No one in the House has so far denied those benefits; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, described the disbenefits of not having collective bargaining, which are, I think, acknowledged by my noble friend the Minister. Instead, the defence is that collective bargaining is unworkable or too burdensome. However, the JIB and other extant joint national councils of a voluntary nature, as well as the Whitley councils in the public sector, show that they are not unworkable or burdensome and that sectoral collective bargaining works.
I make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. First, collective bargaining, even at the enterprise level, benefits non-unionists as well as unionists. Collective bargaining may be reached between a trade union representing only a proportion of the workers in a bargaining unit, but the output covers all workers in the bargaining unit. Secondly—this is a point that I need to make in relation to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—collective bargaining has been proven not to create unemployment; academic studies and, indeed, studies by the OECD have demonstrated that. In response to the noble Lord, I make the point, in terms of the EU comparison, that unemployment differs from one European country to another. However, one thing is absolutely clear: unemployment in European countries is not caused or related to the extent of collective bargaining coverage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about the non-membership of trade unions. Tangentially to that, I will make one point: one of the reasons for falling membership of trade unions in this country—and, indeed, in other countries—is the decline in collective bargaining. People will not join trade unions when they know that the trade union will not have a voice in setting their terms and conditions. They would be paying a contribution as just a gesture, without any hope of getting anything back.
I will not deal with all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but there was one point about the definition of sectors. That has always been problematic, but it has always been resolved. For decades, there have been arguments about the definition of sectors for the purposes of wage councils and joint national councils, but, ultimately, they were all resolved.
In response to my noble friend the Minister, I want to pick up one small point in relation to the proposal that ACAS should have restored to it the duty to promote collective bargaining. ACAS had that duty for decades, and it did not mean that ACAS was partisan in any way. ACAS has always been respected as impartial and independent; having that duty again, in my respectful opinion, would not open it to that sort of criticism.
I recognise, as my noble friend the Minister asked me to, that what is proposed in this Bill is a major step forward. There can be no doubt about that. I acknowledge her commitment to go further; she knows that I would of course prefer to go further now, but I respect her commitment to support sectoral collective bargaining. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Review: impact of employment law relating to casting directories and digital casting platformsWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the impact of employment law relating to casting directories and digital casting platforms on performers in the creative industries.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg, and the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Cashman, who unfortunately cannot be here today, and for the discussions I have had with them and other colleagues in the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, who I see her in her place, and with relevant industry representatives. I am also grateful for the meeting that my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I had with the Minister and her team on not just this but other areas of the creative industries in relation to the Bill.
This debate has been prompted by the ongoing dispute between Equity and the casting directory resource Spotlight around the levels of charging that Spotlight makes for the inclusion of performers in its now online directory. I declare an interest as my daughter is at drama school and signed up with Spotlight. Equity believes that Spotlight charges too much for this service and is bound by both the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Equity believes that, at the very least, Spotlight should not be charging more than it costs to maintain the directory. This dispute has resulted in a class action brought last year by Equity against Spotlight, and a High Court hearing is scheduled for next month.
I will not say anything about how the court case should or will pan out, and I am sure that the Minister will be equally as careful in her response in that respect. What I can say is that things very much came to a head in 2023, when Spotlight tried to launch its so-called “premiere service” at a time when we had only just emerged from Covid. This was widely criticised within the industry as invoking a two-tier membership which would only benefit the more privileged. To its credit, Spotlight paused this service, but there is no doubt that some damage had been done in terms of trust.
Equity says that the charges that Spotlight makes are their members’ number one concern and that, further, Spotlight is exploiting its monopoly position. However, there is a strong argument for a single, recognisable go-to platform for professional actors and other performers. This is a really important point, otherwise it could cost actors a lot more if it becomes necessary to sign up to more than one platform. This is a role that Spotlight has fulfilled for almost 100 years and continues to fulfil. I should say that, as far as I can ascertain, there is no substantial criticism of the service that Spotlight or indeed other platforms provide; this is a dispute about costs.
One potential outcome of the court case is that performers will not have to pay anything at all for inclusion in such directories. However, this raises very problematic concerns about how those moneys are made up for if that should be the case, as well as there being potentially wider implications beyond the entertainment industry.
I ask two things of the Minister. The first is very simple and modest: that the Government keep a watching brief on this. We may well return to this after the court case, and I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Freyberg to provide particular arguments about why we should have the review that the amendment itself asks for.
Secondly, and the reason for raising this issue at the present time, is that as I have tried to show, this dispute has not come out of the blue. I therefore ask the Government whether they believe that a legally enabled mechanism might have been useful in this instance and potential future instances in order to resolve such disputes and avoid court proceedings, which is always a nuclear option. In that respect, I listened with great interest to the previous debate on the group led by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and wonder whether the Minister has a response to that. I beg to move.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 204C. I thank my noble friend Lord Clancarty for tabling the amendment and I am grateful for the constructive discussion that he, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, and I had with colleagues, industry representatives and the Minister and her team. Like my noble friend, I do not intend to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings between Equity and Spotlight; that is rightly a matter for the courts. However, I believe that the situation that has prompted this amendment highlights an underlying tension that is worthy of review: whether the existing employment law and regulatory framework remain fit for purpose in today’s digital casting environment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have said everything that I wanted to say. I just want to add that it has been a pleasure working with them and with my noble friend Lady McIntosh to endeavour to understand the nature of this dispute. It occurs to me, in the light of what we have been discussing this afternoon, that a good dose of collective bargaining and negotiation might come to the assistance of the parties.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I had not expected to speak at any point during this Bill, and I will do so now only very briefly to express my thanks to the noble Earl and his colleagues for praying my name in aid in relation to this amendment. I really just want to say that I may be the only person in the House—and I am certainly, I think, the only person in this Chamber—for whom a casting directory was the bible of my life for many decades. Therefore, I know exactly how important it is to performers that there should be a trusted published work of some kind to which they can refer their information which can then be the source of potential employment through the work of casting directors and other industry professionals.
I just say to the Minister, when she comes to consider this amendment—which, by the way, I do support, and I have nothing to add or anything I wish to contradict in what has been said so far—that it is important to recognise that this is an extremely delicate ecosystem in which there are many, many people who need to avail themselves, and have done over decades, as we have been told, of the kind of service that a casting director and a casting directory provide. Frankly, for most of all of our lives, it has been Spotlight, but it could be others. The people who need to avail themselves of that service are many in number, and the people who need to use it in order to find out about those people are much fewer in number—mostly casting directors. It is very important that they have a trusted source, that performers can rely on their information being carefully curated, looked after and protected in the way that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have already outlined, but that we do not disturb the particular delicate relationship between those two aspects of the way that the business works. While I am not in favour of exceptionalism on the whole, I think we do have to understand that this industry operates not always perfectly but certainly in an unusual kind of way, and it is necessary that it continue to do so with the right protections in place.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for bringing this very important subject to the attention of this Committee. All sectors of the economy, including the creative industries, deserve fair and proportionate attention in the development and review of employment law, particularly when, as the noble Earl pointed out, the workplace is changing so fast and at such speed.
As the noble Earl reminded us, we need a framework which strikes the right balance. We are all grateful to him for not commenting in any detail about an ongoing dispute, which we will all carefully avoid mentioning any more, although we all agree we must keep a watching brief on what is happening as regards that particular instance.
However, as we consider wider reforms to employment rights and protections, we must ensure that we are not unintentionally leaving out those in less conventional work arrangements. Performers and others working in the creative industries often operate outside the normal employer and employee model. They frequently rely, as we have heard, on casting directories and digital platforms to access work—platforms that are increasingly central as to how creative labour is bought and sold, and have been for a number of years. Yet this part of the labour market is rarely the focus of legislative scrutiny. That must change.
I hope we are all agreed that we cannot claim to be modernising employment law if we ignore how it interacts with one of the fastest growing and culturally significant sectors of our economy. This amendment does not, of course, call for regulation but for understanding. A review will help us grasp better whether existing protections are functioning as they should, and whether any further action is needed to ensure fairness and transparency in the systems on which performers so clearly depend. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to how he would like to respond to what is a fast-changing situation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very short but very interesting debate, and declare an interest that many and perhaps all my actor friends are registered with Spotlight. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for tabling Amendment 204C.
Providers of work-finding services, which can include digital services, are regulated through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which are enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and in due course they will be enforced by the fair work agency. I hope that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on who enforces regulations in this area.
The conduct regulations also allow for employment agencies to charge work-seekers in specific occupations, such as actors, musicians and singers, fees for their inclusion in a publication for the purpose of work finding. These costs can be no more than a reasonable estimate of the cost of production and circulation of that publication.
I am sure that all noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot say anything more about the ongoing litigation between the actors’ union and that particular organisation. However, I will share with all noble Lords how the Government are supporting the creative sector.
The UK is home to world-class creative industries. Every single day, our arts and culture bring joy to millions of people, not just in our four nations but all over the world. Every second, someone somewhere will be listening, reading or hearing one of our creative artists. They are part of our soft power, part of our economic power and part of the joy that we so generously give the world. They enrich our lives, bring our communities together and drive our economy. The creative industries have been identified as a growth-driving sector in our strategy, Invest 2035.
People and skills are an important part of this strategy. The Government have been working closely with the sector, including through the creative industry sector plan task force, to develop a plan for the sector. The Creative Industries Taskforce includes Creative UK, the British Fashion Council and the Royal Shakespeare Company, and I hope that it will address some of the issues that were asked about earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to improve the working conditions of those in the creative industries, and I will discuss this further when we debate a later amendment on the performing arts and entertainment sectors tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He did not answer my question about a legally enabled mechanism, although I think it was probably answered at the end of the previous debate.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, about the delicate ecosystem is hugely important, and we upset that ecosystem at our peril. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for what he said about collective bargaining. That is something that we perhaps ought to be looking at, nevertheless. The claim that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, repeated—that 30% of radio adverts are now AI-generated—is quite shocking. This is yet another stress on our artists, without remuneration. That leads me to my final comment, which is that it is probably not a coincidence that this dispute is happening at a time when, after 14 years when the subsidised arts sector, so important at the grass-roots level—the entry level for young performers for theatre, television and film—has been torn to shreds, when there are far fewer jobs in this sector and fewer new theatre productions across the country. Although that is not a justification for any particular stance taken, it is, nevertheless, a significant part of the wider story.
I hope that, with the spending review, this damage will start to be repaired, because what price employment rights for employees if there are no jobs to go to? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the statement of trade union rights applies only to larger employers.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who is unable to be in her place today. I have to say that these parts of the Bill, Parts 4 and 5, will be the most contentious, but I think this is the meat and drink of what the Bill is intended to do, which is essentially to repeal most of the labour relations legislation put in place by successive Conservative Governments since 1992.
I am tempted by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and her hagiography of labour relations and trade union activity before 1979, as if it was a land of milk and honey, the closed shop did not exist and the trade unions had not brought the country to its knees, to the extent that a third of trade unionists in the 1979 general election voted Conservative. In fact, Conservative trade unionists were one of the most powerful and influential groups in the Conservative Party at the time.
That was the reality of the situation then: the closed shop bringing the motor industry and various other industries to their knees. Many working-class people were sick to death of the trade unions, which is why they voted Conservative. The idea that it was a dark, draconian period of the evil capitalist bosses forcing the horny-handed sons of toil into penury was nonsense. I am more than happy for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, to disabuse me of my prejudices, but I do not think that she will. Historically, we won general elections as a party because trade unionists supported us as they knew that reform was vital. We will no doubt debate that at length as we go on.
While I am being slightly contentious, I note the Cross Benches are empty, bar the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, whom it is always a pleasure to see. In many of the Bills over the last two years, the Cross Benches deprecated the use of excessive reliance on delegated powers. They would pop up during every piece of primary legislation, every Bill, to complain about the ministerial misuse of delegated powers, which is happening in this Bill in spades. Yet where are they? They are not present to remonstrate with the Government, take issue with the Government or hold the Government to account on that. Anyway, we must proceed.
In moving Amendment 205, I will speak also to Amendments 206 to 208, and the Clause 55 stand part notice tabled by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The practical and economic consequences of Clause 55 without amendment are likely to be damaging to the very workers whom the Bill claims to protect. This is against an economic background where we have growth becalmed, flat growth of GDP and a very tough labour market out there. Yet the Bill will load further incumbencies on small businesses in particular.
Amendment 207 seeks to exempt micro-employers—those with fewer than 10 employees—from the obligation in respect of access. These amendments reflect a recognition that a one-size-fits-all mandate across employers of vastly different scale is neither fair nor sustainable. Micro-businesses and SMEs are already struggling under the weight of administrative obligations. Writing in an open letter, signed by FTSE 250 firm Mitie, industry leader OCS and other employers from the £60 billion facilities sector warned that the Bill’s radical package would “discourage growth”, damaging their businesses and harming their clients and, crucially, their staff. Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, put it succinctly:
“The Government also needs to think again and rework the parts of the Employment Rights Bill that will wreak havoc on hiring”.
This is a Government ostensibly focused on growth who have created—although we have never seen it written down in a comprehensive way—the so-called growth test that the Chancellor has referenced. Tina McKenzie’s concerns are far from abstract. We are facing a sustained fall in payroll employment. Small businesses, the engine of British job creation, are being hit hardest. The rise in national insurance contributions and a growing web of compliance burdens are already pushing small firms to the edge. This clause in its current form risks tipping many over.
Amendment 205 seeks to ensure that the obligation to issue this statement applies only to employers with more than 50 workers. This is a reasonable and proportionate step. Larger firms are more likely to have a human resources infrastructure to absorb such obligations. For smaller enterprises, every new administrative requirement pulls resources from service delivery and job creation. It has an impact on the bottom line, which inevitably will feed through to decisions to not employ people or to make people redundant, which we would all deprecate.
Let us not be naive: the cumulative effect of obligations like this can and will lead to reduced hiring, increased redundancies and the potential acceleration of automation. Faced with mounting costs, employers may choose software over staff. The Government must be mindful that even well-intended regulation carries a cost. In the words of the very employees this Government say they want to support:
“We are deeply concerned that some of the Bill’s provisions will have serious unintended consequences that could harm both good employers and the very employees that the Bill seeks to protect”.
My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom referenced the British Retail Consortium survey published on 29 April. It bears repetition, because it is a pretty damning indictment of the very significant concerns that employers at the sharp end—this is a survey of HR directors—have about the Bill as it stands. Some 70% believe that the Bill
“would have a very negative or negative impact on their business”,
52% said it would result in fewer staff members in their businesses and 61% said it
“would reduce flexibility in job offerings”.
They have urged the Government to engage, and today I echo that call.
Finally, Amendment 208 seeks to probe why the requirement to issue this statement must extend beyond the point of employment commencement. Is there any compelling justification for placing employers on a continual alert to reissue the statement at “prescribed times”? What does that even mean? Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene in the minutiae of a business—in the very weeds of how a business runs to make money, make profit, provide jobs, pay taxes and deliver public services for people? Why is it important for Ministers to involve themselves in the prescribed times a statement can be given? Surely, if the goal is awareness, combining this with the statement of employment particulars under Section 1 of the 1996 Act would suffice. We should not mandate bureaucracy for its own sake.
Let us step back and consider the broader context. If the Minister did not want to listen to the British Retail Consortium, she will no doubt be aware of other surveys published recently, such as that by the Federation of Small Businesses earlier in the year, which revealed that
“92 per cent of small employers are worried about the Employment Rights Bill, with 67 per cent saying they plan to recruit fewer staff, and 32 per cent set to reduce headcount”.
The Minister will know that her ministerial colleague, the MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, has been challenged in the other place on a number of occasions to name just one small business that supported the Bill, and has hitherto been unable to come up with a name. The Government have come forward with Richer Sounds—which is not a small business by any stretch of the imagination—and Centrica, which is a massive business. I know that, under the Bill, big businesses will probably soon end up as small businesses, but that is a different matter. They also mentioned the Co-op. There is a surprise: the Co-op supporting the Labour Party; “The Pope likes balconies” will be the next one. Yes, the Co-op supports the Bill.
It is important to step back and think about the Bill. In an already fragile market where businesses are battling inflation, rising taxes and regulatory fatigue, we must not view administrative obligations as cost-free, because they are not. They weigh heavily, particularly on the smallest firms. I speak from experience. A number of years ago, I was an Investors in People manager, when I used to help small and medium-sized businesses with their quality standards. They often did not want to engage, because they did not have the time and the energy as they were focused on chasing invoices, chasing new businesses and giving presentations to potential new clients. These are the burdens that small businesses face every day. They become big businesses, and they pay taxes, so I ask the Minister to give some consideration to that.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s remarks. I agree with every word.
I vividly recall the change in this country, in 1979, when union power was such that people were frightened of starting businesses or to go to work. Murdoch took a brave stance to take the unions head on and, after 1979, the country emerged with much greater strength, economic certainty and prosperity. As a result, people like me chose to start a business in this country. That was because of the economic prosperity created by Thatcher’s Cabinet and team. Any attempt to go backwards rather than forwards is very depressing and disappointing.
My noble friend Lord Jackson is of course right that Clause 55 is the kernel of the Bill. It is an important clause that reveals why the Bill is so inappropriate and badly drafted, and it needs amendment or, if not, not to stand part.
I refer to the British Chambers of Commerce, an independent organisation which, as we know from Second Reading, criticised the Bill because of its lack of consultation, because of its greater restriction and penalties for firms that want to make workforce changes but, most importantly, because of the greater responsibilities, costs and complexity for employers. The Bill includes some of the most significant and widest range of changes to employment laws for decades.
The Government’s own assessment suggests that the legislation will cost businesses almost £5 billion a year, and that the SME sector will be impacted most. This is at a time when, just in the last couple of months, businesses have come to terms with the dreadful, unnecessary and wholly growth-destroying national insurance increase. It is literally putting businesses out of business. Your Lordships do not have to believe me; just look at the last insolvency statistics, which show record figures of insolvency, particularly for CVLs—creditors’ voluntary liquidations. People are throwing in the towel; they are not prepared to carry on business when they are faced with these increased costs for employing people and for properties and business rates, which the Bill imposes on all businesses.
My particular concern is with the SME sector. We debated this at Second Reading, and I complimented the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on starting a small business. He therefore knows and understands this, but many people on the Front Bench of the Labour Party do not have that experience and expertise and are not aware of the damage this will do. These amendments are vital, particularly to try to exempt small businesses—and, if not small businesses, micro-businesses—from these onerous requirements.
To take it to the point of absurdity, and to declare an interest, I personally employ one person—do I have to give that one person a piece of paper when they join? It looks like I do. Will I then be told by the Government that I have to give that person a statement “at other prescribed times”? What does that mean? It means that when the unions are short of members, as they invariably are, and they need to raise more money —we know where that money largely ends up—they will say to employers, “Right, you’d better give all your staff a statement to tell them that they have the right to join a union”, and encourage them so to do. It is on the point of absurdity.
The BCC goes on to say:
“the scale and scope of the changes is huge, with many feeling they are being rushed through at breakneck speed … Firms are particularly concerned about the lack of detailed consultation on the Trade Union changes, especially when the Government’s own assessment was so vague about the impact”.
It rightly points out that:
“Overall, there is a lot in the Employment Rights Bill that reinforces much of what good businesses already do. But the fear remains that certain elements could create huge costs for firms and damage the UK’s ambitions for growth”.
I repeat the request made to the Government Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to cite businesses—SME businesses in particular, but actually any businesses—that are in support. Richer Sounds is not a good example. Julian Richer sold Richer Sounds to an EOT—it is a co-operative. One of the firms mentioned last time was Nationwide. That is not an SME, and the Co-op is certainly not. So where is the support for this? Please can we exclude this extremely vague “at other prescribed times”, which is without any limitation or cap? If it said “annually”, that might be a start. Can we also exclude both SMEs and micro-companies from these onerous requirements?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that seek to mitigate the impact of Clause 55, which amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by inserting a new section with a
“Statement of trade union rights”.
I support, in particular, Amendment 205 by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would apply the statement only to larger companies. We have heard very good arguments as to why this should happen. I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would leave open to employers the option to decide whether to apply the statement under the new Section 136A. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would mean it does not apply to smaller employers and those with fewer than 10 employees, as well as her amendment that probes why such a statement should be given at times other than the start of the job. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, put forward some good potential reasons.
This a very bad clause. I oppose it for two reasons. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on the Front Bench, who has stated that it should not be part of a Bill, certainly not in 2025. Such obligations interfere with the professional balance of duties and responsibilities in a business between employer and employee. The employer must promote the best interests of the business and, with the directors of the company, employers are bound to do so.
Employers are also bound under employment law. The 1992 Act, which this clause amends, already strikes a balance between the role of trade unions in the workplace and the employer. It sets out that the employer or business recognise trade unions that meet certain criteria, engage in collective bargaining, provide information to the unions and respect those engaged in lawful industrial action. We already have recognition of the responsibilities of employers to trade unions in the workplace; a balance has been struck, and it has worked, by and large, very well.
The interests of the business will also involve treating all workers not only legally but fairly and professionally. It should not involve employers being obliged, as the new Section 136A stipulates, to give a written statement that the employee has the right to join a trade union at the start of the job and at other prescribed times. It should also not be left to politicians, as the new section states—the Secretary of State at the time—to prescribe what information is included, what form the statement takes, in what manner it should be given, and whether regulations prescribing anything for the purpose of this section may make different provision for different purposes.
Are we making the law or are we leaving it to some executive authority to make something up on the back of an envelope and prescribe it through his or her officials in government? This is not lawmaking, and this Parliament should challenge this sort of power being given to a Secretary of State to do what he or she may like. This not only adds a layer of bureaucracy but brings uncertainty to businesses and adds costs, from which smaller businesses at least should be spared.
The individual choices that employees make should not be anticipated by presuming that union membership is an assumption that both employer and employee make. That undermines the freedom of both parties to have a non-politicised atmosphere and implies that a business will be run in an atmosphere of expected confrontation instead. It suggests that freedom is being undermined. Yes, it does not require an employee to join the union, but if an employer presents a new employee with this statement, what on earth is the employee to think except that this is what should be done in order to get on in this business?
The second ground for objection, however, is more general. Obliging businesses to make such a statement politicises the internal arrangements of business. Trade union membership may or may not be something individuals choose, but we must recognise that trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party; they founded the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be dominated by former union members—or perhaps continuing union members. At certain times of Britain’s history, trade unions have dominated many workplaces and paralysed public services. Indeed, we see that continuing this year in Birmingham, with the paralysis in relation to bins and the failure of the council to deal with the Unite union. They have stopped the productive activities of the British people in industry and in business, undermining the economic success of the whole country and the ability of people to earn a decent wage or salary.
I am afraid they have undermined freedoms and have undermined the democratic decision by the people of this country to live without fear—fear that their child’s school will be closed by strikes, fear that their university lectures may be cancelled because the union has called a strike, and the fear of many working people that they cannot get to work and earn their money because the railways are strike-bound. This clause should not be in the Bill. It undermines the freedoms that were fought hard for by Conservative Governments since 1979 to restore freedom in the workplace, with a fair balance between trade unions and working people.
When I first came to this country in 1979 as a student, one of the members of staff of my college told me, “I am the sole earner in my family now. My husband had to join a union because of the closed shop. He couldn’t get a job without joining a union. Now that he has joined the union, he has been told he can’t work. This is why I, for the first time in my life, am voting for the Conservative Party and Mrs Thatcher”. Conservative Governments have successfully and successively restored order to the economy, allowed this country to prosper, allowed people to get jobs, helped entrepreneurship and growth, and helped Britain to no longer be the sick man of Europe. People voted for that. We should not turn the clock back to a day when we are chipping away bit by bit at those rights, so that people will not have the freedom to earn and this country will not be able to pay its way.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I support the amendments introduced by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I am assured by my noble friend Lord Leigh that he believes that Hansard will record that he referred throughout his speech to “the noble Lord, Lord Jackson”.
Employment is a precious coin. It is the many coins of employment that keep this economy going. When there are more coins, the economy grows, and this whole House is united in wanting that to happen. We are all on the same side on that. We want the economy to grow, certainly not to shrink. And, like any coin, it has two sides: the side of the employee and the side of the employer.
Sitting through the many days of this Committee, any poor, benighted individual who has been watching on Parliament TV might think that this Chamber contains two parallel universes, with two entirely incompatible ideas of what employment is about. On the one side they are hearing about greedy employers, grasping capital, and the need for trade unions to protect the poor employee. But what is this coin of employment? It is a place where an individual says, “I want work. I want to go to work and earn money for me, my family, and my future”, and where an employer says, “I want to provide work. I want to risk my endeavours and my capital, even my solvency since I might go bankrupt, in order to give you that employment”. And it is a fair bargain.
Most employers, particularly small employers, who start up a business and employ people are not thinking, “I’m going to exploit these poor workers”. The vast majority of workers are not the victims that we have heard described as the reason why this clause is necessary. The vast number of employees work harmoniously with their employer, and the vast number of employers work harmoniously with their employees. I imagine this poor person watching Parliament TV and possibly, if the camera cuts to the faces opposite, seeing the looks of doubt, irritation and disbelief when I say this. But I have been an employer on literally scores of businesses, large and small, and I know how it works. What the employer wants is to provide a good or a service and sell it at a slightly higher price than the cost of providing that good or service, so as to make a little profit and employ lots of people at the same time. That is what they want to do.
What they dread is law upon law that they have to spend all their time on and which bad actors can use to exploit them. We all know that in the human population it is said that 3% are what they call “dark triad” personalities—narcissistic, Machiavellian and sociopathic—who are very good at concealing their behaviour and coming across as caring individuals, by the way. They are found in the most caring societies, and on all sides of the Chamber. The employer dreads that individual joining their company and having a mechanism by which they can exploit the company and make money out of it, taking it to the employment tribunal or threatening it with that and getting paid off, not working hard or doing whatever.
We are saying here that some poor person who is going to hire, say, three, five or 10 employees is going to have to spend all their time understanding these laws, doing the things that the laws lay down and responding to employment tribunals when a bad actor comes into their company—as they do, from time to time, in every company—rather than doing what they are there to do, which is to provide great goods or services to their customers. That is what nearly all of them, employer and employee alike, want to do.
Barbara Castle, the great Labour politician, recognised the problems with trades unions and produced a paper called In Place of Strife. I suggest that the Bill—you can imagine the poor employer with three employees having to go through its 300 pages to figure out what they are going to have to do with it, even as it is passed —is creating strife in many places, and that even Barbara Castle might be turning in her grave when she sees how far this Government are prepared to go. I have sat here sometimes wondering whether the Government really believe the things they are saying.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to address the amendment. These sound like Second Reading speeches being redelivered and redelivered. When is the noble Lord going to address the actual amendment? This is just a tour de force around the 1970s and 1980s, with anecdotes from the Back Benches again. We are trying to do business.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I hope I am forgiven for thinking he has not been listening to what I have been saying. As I understand it, this clause is about reducing the number of people down to more or less nothing who are necessary in a company in order for a bunch of trades union mechanisms to be created. The amendment would remove that and tries to push up the number of employees below which this clause would not take effect. That is all that I have been talking about and I am startled to believe that a noble Lord of such eminence apparently has not been listening. I could finish fairly soon, if not interrupted much more.
My concern is that we are all people of good will. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is rightly proud of the many good things that trades unions have done, but surely she cannot be unaware of how the people of Birmingham might feel about the striking dustmen or about how the people of this great capital feel about striking Underground workers and the commuter trains that so often muck up their daily life. She must be aware that, on another coin of trade unionism, there is the good and the bad. We have employment tribunals with two years of delay to even get to a tribunal, but clause after clause, including this one, threatens to increase the number of references to employment tribunals.
This clause is going to increase the awful number that we have just seen today of 150,000 job losses. In the parallel universe that we are in, can it possibly be that the Government Benches believe that that loss of 150,000 jobs has nothing to do with this plan, with their NIC changes, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, or with so many other changes that are detrimental to employment in this country?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the Clause 55 stand part notice and Amendment 208. I have sympathy with my noble friend’s amendments regarding small and micro employers. We need to cut to the chase. I will probably irritate the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, but what is the point of this?
The Minister in the other place said that he hoped this clause would be “straightforward”—it is certainly straightforward—and “uncontroversial”. He said:
“Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union”.
and that there is a duty in this clause. He said:
“A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation”,—[Official Report, Commons, Employment Rights Bill Committee, 7/1/25; col. 517.]
and so on.
I go back to the point I made in a previous debate: the key headline in selling this to the public was that it was about day-one rights. As I have already explained to the Committee, this could have been done through a statutory instrument. Part 4 is a classic example of the fact that a lot of the motivation is about increasing trade union membership. Trade union membership is now at about 6 million people, I think; it might be just over that. By the way, as I said at Second Reading, I am not against trade unions, but I do not think it is the job of legislation to try to increase trade union membership as a consequence of our actions here today. I made the point about political funds.
To come back to the numbers, about 22% of employees are now members of a trade union. Of course, people have to pay a fee. I have recommended to people that they join a trade union, but we should be aware that the only sector where trade union membership is going up is the public sector. My general perspective on some of these things is that people tend to join a trade union when they do not trust their employer and they think they might need help, when they are not treated well or when there are other issues worrying them. That is when a lot of the benefits of trade unions come in, such as getting access to legal advice—I know there are plenty of other benefits as well. Family members of mine are trade union members and, as I say, I am not anti-trade union, but I am concerned about the approach we are taking in Part 4.
On Amendment 208, it would be useful to get an understanding from the Minister about what other prescribed times there might be. It is one of the oddest bits of this part of the Bill. When you join, you get to know certain things—it might not all be on day one; I accept that there is a bit later that talks about instalments and that sometimes you get to know certain key things, but you must do it within two weeks or two months, I cannot remember which. You may not get everything on day one, but, nevertheless, what are the other prescribed times? Will it be the same frequency as is being put in the Bill about the reminder to opt out of the trade union political fund, which will have moved to every 10 years? Why not put it in the Bill if we want an annual reminder, or we want it at the same frequency as a say on whether people can be part of the trade union political fund—or indeed on ways that that decision is made?
I am concerned about this element. There is no doubt that employer representatives are concerned about aspects of this Bill. In particular, when they spoke to me earlier this week, they said that quite a lot of the impact assessment is written on the basis that savings will be down to the fact that there will be fewer strikes. We should recognise the history of strikes happening in our employment places in the last couple of years or so: the number of strikes has gone up significantly in the public sector, exactly where trade union membership is going up—not the other way round. I appreciate that there has been a change in government and that Wes Streeting sat around a table, but we know that right now, where trade union membership is going up, the ballot papers—I do not quite know the process—are going out, calling for getting the vote together for a mandate for industrial action. It is happening right now.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that our very serious concerns about this clause would be assuaged were the Government to have properly followed Cabinet Office protocols and updated expeditiously the impact assessments, which are normally present in Bills of this size and magnitude?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. I have tried to get deposited in the Library, or sent through some other form of communication to all Peers, a response I have received from the Secretary of State on this matter. By the way, I have still not received a reply from the Cabinet Secretary, who is supposed to uphold Cabinet Office guidelines. In essence, the answer came back: “We’ll do a full impact assessment once the Bill is completed”. We know that industry is looking for that. We have no idea when these regulations will be introduced; I assume that they could already have started the consultation. It is important that the Secretary of State—I am trying to remember; I do not have a photographic memory—basically said, “We haven’t really changed that much”. That is where we are. I will continue to make the point. My noble friend is right and reminds me to chase the Cabinet Secretary.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Perhaps I can help my noble friend by explaining that Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 allows an employee to claim compensation of between two and four weeks’ pay. Does she think this will lead to ducks-and-drakes people trying to seek such compensation?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I expect the bigger employers, if they know about this legislation—although we are hearing from a lot of the employers’ representatives that a lot of their members had not even heard about the day one rights until very recently—will probably put their HR departments and lawyers on it. I am concerned about the smaller ones, which is why I am sympathetic to the amendments in this group on micro employers and small employers. Otherwise, this could start to become a very expensive business. It is yet another reason why the Government generally do not seem to understand the chilling effect that not only their economic policies but legislation such as this will have on the recruitment of people to jobs.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I had no intention of coming here today to speak until I had dinner last night. Having put in a day’s work, I thought it was time to come here and express an opinion.
I would like to describe that situation last night. It follows on from a lot of what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley said and the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. This friend of mine, whom I have known for 30 or 40 years, is a small businessman in Bath, down in the West Country. He said to me, “Mark, we have a major problem coming. I have friends in similar places who run small businesses”—he runs a business of some six or seven people. “We are all talking together, because that is how we transfer knowledge, and the number of us beginning to think about throwing in the towel is significant. I want you to know about it”.
If this change were to happen, it would affect the poor employees of these businesses. There is nothing inherently wrong with these businesses but there is, as we have heard, more and more legislation coming upon them. It is the employees who are going. The domino effect through local economies is too much for these businesses. These small guys have to employ lawyers, HR experts and so on. I work for a company where we have those in house. They are just getting to the end of their tether. They do not want to stop, but I hope that Amendments 205 and 207 will help prevent that sort of thing happening and another nail in the coffin for these small businesses, which are really struggling as they think about the hassle of going on.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the provision of employment rights. The essence of the group is about requiring employers to provide workers with a written statement of their trade union rights. Even after seven hours, I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, describe a romp through the 1970s and the bad old days of the Labour Party bringing the country to its knees and almost losing the car industry. He failed to skip into the 1980s, when the Government did destroy an industry—the coal industry—and did immeasurable damage to the trade union movement, which it has taken decades to recover from and is at the heart of the Bill. It is a direct result of actions taken by a certain Government in a previous life. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have been here since the start of the debate and listening. As the Companion says, it is courtesy to be here at the start of the debate to listen to the opening speeches and then the winding up speeches. There seems to be real departure from that by Members, who just wander in, make contributions and wander out.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is not saying I was not here for the start of this debate. Of course, the Labour Government closed down more coal mines than Margaret Thatcher.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I did not imply that the noble Lord was not here—he was. He is assiduous in his attendance to this House and I enjoy 90% of what he says, much of which is quite amusing, but not much knowledge from it goes into my head.
I have one final point for the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for whom I have the highest regard. I thought she was an excellent Minister and makes excellent contributions. However, I have to gently remind her that I think she also made her contribution tonight a couple of nights ago, in response to my intervention about the reason behind the Bill. However, I enjoy the heart and soul that she puts into this. She is interrogating and pushing the Government, but I try to keep it to what we are trying to do here.
These provisions are intended to ensure that individuals are made aware of their right to join a trade union. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It is a fundamental element of workplace democracy. The amendments in this group raise important and valid questions about how that requirement should operate in practice, especially for smaller employers—and, yes, it may put a burden on them. For example, Amendments 205 and 207 examine whether it is appropriate for those duties to apply universally, or whether the threshold should be considered to avoid placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses.
I am somewhat concerned about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remove the provisions from the Bill entirely. It risks sending the wrong signal about the importance of transparency around trade union rights. Although it is, of course, necessary to ensure that new obligations are proportionate and clearly drafted, deleting the entire clause at this stage could be seen as an overly blunt response. It would be preferable for the Government to engage with all the points raised tonight in these amendments and explore whether a more targeted approach could be achieved, with a fairer workable outcome that upholds workers’ rights without creating undue complexities for employers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, even if he does not agree with my amendment in this group. Not that my noble friend Lady Coffey needs any defending, but I think she developed her theme admirably, which is surely the point of our being here. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for introducing our noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments, and for his excellent historical perspective. I thank my noble friends—perhaps I should call them my noble comrades —Lord Leigh, Lady Lawlor, Lord Moynihan and Lady Coffey for their contributions.
This clause may seem straightforward, and even beneficial at first glance, but its practical and legal implications reveal it to be unnecessary, burdensome, ideologically charged and fraught with uncertainty. For these reasons, it should be removed from the Bill. First, it is important—others have made this point—to acknowledge that workers’ rights to join trade unions are already comprehensively protected by our existing legal framework. These protections are well established in legislation such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, referred to by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and the Employment Rights Act 1996.
These rights are well understood by workers, employers and unions alike, and information on these rights is widely available through multiple channels, including unions themselves, ACAS and legal advisers. Mandating a new written statement does not create or clarify any new rights; it simply duplicates what is already clear, adding unnecessary complexity without addressing any real problem.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling Amendments 205, 206, 207 and 208. I acknowledge that the noble Lord introduced the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness. I will also address the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, on their opposition to Clause 55 standing part of the Bill.
I am sorry that the tone of the debate has somewhat deteriorated this afternoon. I thought that we were having a reasonable, grown-up conversation until now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, because he admitted that what he was saying were his prejudices—and that is certainly what it sounded like. He was talking about a period 50 years ago, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, the world of work has changed significantly since then. As we absolutely acknowledge, we now have outdated employment processes and huge levels of exploitation, including a climate where it is not easy or encouraged to be a member of a union. That is one of the issues that we are seeking to address here.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who tried to give us a talk about democracy, that this Government were elected with a huge win on a manifesto to introduce the legislation that we have before us today.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way, but I do not know that a mandate of 33% of the electorate is indeed a very strong mandate for overturning the reforms that have brought stability to the workplace.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We can have a long discussion about that, but if we are talking about mandates, it may well be argued that probably Baroness Thatcher did not have that kind of mandate either. The fact is that we won that election with a huge majority, and I am very sorry that the party opposite lost so badly. They might want to reflect a little bit more on why that was, because some of the issues that noble Lords have been talking about in relation to the state of our economy are exactly what we inherited from the previous Government. Those issues are absolutely the result of that Government’s economic policies and not ours. We have been taking great steps to improve the situation. While I am on that issue, I should say that, as a result of this Government’s actions, we had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 at the start of this year; we have done three trade deals in three weeks, with India, the US and the EU; interest rates have been cut four times—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Minister is aware, of course, that interest rates are independently managed by the Bank of England.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I make my case. The only reason those interest rates were cut was that our economy has been improving. Some £63 billion of private investment was announced at the investment summit last year. Introducing this Bill within 100 days will boost protections and quality of work for the lowest-paid, raising living standards across the country and creating opportunities for all.
I turn to the actual amendments. Amendments 205 and 207, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would introduce exemptions to this measure based on the size of the business. The new duty on employers to inform all employees of the right to join a union is a key part of the Government’s wider commitment to strengthen workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Making exemptions of this kind risks creating a two-tier system in which some workers benefit from this important information while others do not, based purely on the size of their employer. We are committed to striking a fair and proportionate balance, ensuring that workers are aware of their rights without placing undue burdens on employers.
The statement will be provided at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which employers are already required to give under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and on a prescribed basis. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we do not believe that this is a particularly significant extra burden to justify exempting certain employers because of their size, because they already have to give that information anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked about the frequency. We will consult on the specific details, such as the frequency, manner, form and content of the statement before it is outlined in secondary legislation, and I can let noble Lords know that that will be via the negative procedure. We will particularly encourage input from both businesses and unions of all sizes to share their views.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister just referred to the negative procedure. Is that a final decision? Given that the Bill takes so much power to make a series of important decisions by statutory instrument, I think the general expectation would be that such an important decision would be made by affirmative resolution. Would she perhaps contemplate whether that might be the better solution?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that introduction, because I was going to go on to say that the Government think that the powers taken in Clause 55 are necessary and proportionate. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee said that
“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”
it had
“only found four on which to raise concerns”.
Clause 55 was not one of those four, and we will of course respond to the committee’s recommendations in due course.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
While we are considering what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded, I recall that the last time I raised the use of the Henry VIII powers, the Minister said that this Committee would see her draft implementation plan, to which my noble friend referred just a short time ago. We have not yet seen that plan, and a lot of businesses are very concerned about the uncertainty that is being created by not knowing, certainly by now, when these various powers are going to be brought into effect. Will she give some timescale by which we will see the implementation plan, if only in draft?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I know we have discussed the implementation plan several times now, and I can assure noble Lords that we are working at pace to finalise that. I do not think it would be helpful to see it in draft or imperfect form. We want people to have a categorical road map which shows the way forward. We absolutely understand that businesses need to see that; we are working on it. I am very confident that when businesses see it, they will be reassured that none of the things that we are proposing in this legislation will be rushed through. They will have time to prepare for it—I think we had a debate about this earlier. We know that businesses need time to prepare, we are absolutely aware of that, and we are going to make sure that they have it.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I just wanted to clarify something the Minister said. I think I heard her say that it would be done by negative resolution. Does that apply to all of Part 4 or specifically for every element of Clause 55?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My answer was specifically about Clause 55.
Amendment 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would remove the compulsory element of the proposals, making it optional for employers to inform workers of their rights to join a union. To be clear, this is not about necessitating union membership but about ensuring that workers are aware of their rights and can make an informed decision about whether to engage. We want to empower workers to take a more active role in protecting their rights, and, where they choose, to participate in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions. Access to clear and accurate information is fundamental to that. This amendment would seriously weaken this measure by allowing employers to simply ignore the duty, defeating its policy intent entirely. It is vital that the right to union membership is made accessible to all workers as intended, that it is communicated regularly, and that employers are under a firm obligation to do so.
Amendment 208, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would remove the requirement for employers to issue a statement of trade union rights on a prescribed basis. We are legislating for ongoing reminders of the right to join a trade union to reflect the reality of the workplace. New employers may miss information at the start of employment or change roles over time within the same organisation. Limiting the duty to the start of employment would also exclude existing staff, who equally deserve access to that information.
This statement of the right to trade union membership is important in fostering worker engagement and meaningful dialogue between unions and employers. Ongoing reminders are a key part of this measure. The Secretary of State will be able to set the frequency of this notification. This will be, as I have said, outlined in secondary legislation, subject to public consultation, and we invite interested parties to provide us with their views on this matter when we launch the consultation.
On the wider issue, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, urged us to consult more. I can assure him that these proposals have been subject to extensive consultation, and we are continuing to consult on them. I can also tell the noble Lord that we had a very constructive meeting with the Federation of Small Businesses.
Finally, I turn to the clause itself. Clause 55 introduces a new legal duty on employers to inform workers of their right to join a union. Employers will be required to issue this statement at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which I commented on earlier. There is currently no requirement in law for employers to notify their workers of the right to trade union membership. This lack of awareness may be contributing to the falling union membership and reduced worker participation in collective bargaining that we have been discussing. This duty intends to address this gap, ensuring that workers are better informed of this right and helping to strengthen the collective voice in the workplace and enhance their representation. This delivers on the Government’s commitment to improve working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Specific details of this measure, including the frequency, form, content and manner of the notification, will be set out in secondary legislation, as I have said. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and I urge that Clause 55 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Just to press the point on the implementation plan, I am sure the Minister saw yesterday that the OECD downgraded growth forecasts for this country. Obviously, it blamed the global trade picture for a lot of that downgrade, but it also talked about business certainty in this country—or the lack of it. She herself has just acknowledged that businesses need certainty. The OECD is saying this, this is not just us alleging it. Will she please commit to picking up the pace when it comes to delivering this implementation plan and delivering it as soon as possible?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am fully aware that it would help to see the implementation plan and, as I said, we are working at pace to get it to your Lordships as soon as we can.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate. I think you always know when your arguments are hitting home when you are admonished by the Front Bench about tone. It usually means that you are hitting the target. I particularly thank my noble friends for the typically erudite and forensic analysis of Clause 55 by my noble friend Lady Coffey, the excellent real-world experience articulated by my noble friends Lord Ashcombe and Lord Leigh, and, of course the passion, from real-world experience, of my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea.
I do not want to get into a historical discussion, because the hour is late, but Margaret Thatcher was mentioned. Margaret Thatcher never won an election with the puny mandate that this Government had, because what we are seeing is a counterrevolution in favour of the trade unions based on 20% of the electorate, a turnout of 66% and a 34% poll. That is no kind of mandate. In fact, it is a post-dated cheque to the trade unions paid for by the British taxpayer and working people of this country.
There is news from Birmingham, incidentally, as Birmingham was mentioned earlier. Four hundred Unite members have just voted today to carry on striking all the way to Christmas. This is an interesting quote from Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, known to our collective trade union alumni. I do not know what the collective term is: union barons, perhaps. She said:
“It beggars belief that a Labour government and Labour council is treating these workers so disgracefully … Unite calls on the decision makers to let common sense prevail in upcoming negotiations”.
The reason I quote that is that I have to say very gently to the Government Benches: be careful what you wish for. The 1974 Labour Government was destroyed by the trade unions’ actions in the winter of discontent of 1978-79. If the Government proceed with this Bill unamended, they run the risk that that unintended consequence might also be the end of their Government. I would not wish that to be the case, of course, because I think that they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. Nevertheless, it is a risk.
Let us step back from the historical discussions that we have had in what has been an interesting debate. We are being asked to vote for a clause in primary legislation with huge delegated powers in the hands of Ministers. That brings me to a very interesting quote, that
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”.
That was beautifully put, by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture, proving that he is not always wrong about everything.
We have tabled these amendments because this clause does not give us the detail, it will have unintended consequences, and it will have a real-world impact on small businesses in particular. It is not about bashing the trade unions. I would concede, as someone who was a trade union member, that the trade unions have done a brilliant job in terms of member welfare, insurance schemes, et cetera, over the years. They are a force for good generally, but the measures in the Bill far too easily tip the balance against businesses trying to earn a living, in favour of unions, by repealing all the legislation from 1979 and 1992.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, are doing a difficult job and defending a sticky wicket, but I do not think that the Minister really engaged with the arguments. I hope that on Report there is an opportunity to alter this clause, to make it a little less onerous and burdensome to businesses while keeping the spirit of the legislation for workers. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend stands up—I hope he will not have to stand up—it is nearly 7.45 pm and it is Thursday. It is not just the convention but the firm convention of this House that the House should rise at about 7 pm on a Thursday. Therefore, will the Government Chief Whip move to resume the House?
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. I was the Opposition Chief Whip for three years in this House and always played fairly and reasonably with the then Government, even though many times I opposed them fiercely. I try to be reasonable and fair in all the things that I do as Government Chief Whip. This House has an important role to play in challenging and scrutinising legislation. The Opposition have the right to oppose, and the Government have the right to get their business through. I know the point that the noble Baroness makes about conventions. However, equally, we have many times stood here in opposite roles at all hours, well beyond 7 pm on a Thursday, well beyond 10 pm during the week. I want us to continue. We will do one more group before I move that the House adjourns. I think that is fair.
I always recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, whom I like very much. He would often say to me at the end of the night, “Well, of course, Roy, for me it is True’s law that matters. What goes around comes around”. I always thought that I treated the Government very fairly and reasonably. I remember sitting here until four o’clock one morning on a Home Office Bill with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I did my job reasonably and fairly. We will do one more group before we adjourn the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The Chief Whip is absolutely right that the Government will get their business through; I have never demurred from that fact, as he did not when his party were in opposition. However, this is a 298-page Bill. We have made really good progress today—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said—but it is 7.45 pm and we are sitting tomorrow.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is because the Bill is so important and noble Lords have so much to say on it that I have given the Opposition three more days in Committee after this to make sure we have proper scrutiny. We will do one more group before the House adjourns.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment to section 70ZA(2)(a) removes the reference to union officials being able to “communicate with workers” as part of an access agreement.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 208A, 209A, 210, 210A, 213A and 213B, standing in my name. Those first amendments remove the reference to communication with workers as an element of access agreements between unions and employers. They further remove provisions that attempt to cement that right to communicate by any and all means, and which prohibit a party from relying on the availability of physical or non-physical communication as a reason to limit the other. Taken together, these provisions amount to a significant and unjustified broadening of what has traditionally been a clearly understood and workable arrangement: namely, the right of union officials physically to enter a workplace for legitimate access purposes.
This access, by its nature, has always been specific, scheduled and carried out in a manner agreed upon by both parties. It is bounded in both scope and form. The Bill as drafted risks blurring those lines in ways that introduce legal ambiguity, managerial uncertainty and operational disruption. The reference to communication
“by any means, whether directly or indirectly”
is particularly concerning. This is an extremely wide formulation that is open-ended in both language and intent. It creates uncertainty not just in principle, but in practice. What exactly does indirect communication mean in the context of an access agreement? Does it encompass digital platforms, printed material, third-party intermediaries, or perhaps the passive dissemination of content in workplace systems? Without clear boundaries, employers will be left navigating uncharted waters, unsure of what they are obliged to permit and what may lawfully be resisted.
We must also think about how such broad phrasing sits alongside an employer’s duty to maintain a safe, orderly and productive working environment. Workplaces are complex ecosystems. They are governed by routines, procedures and, crucially, the employer’s ability to direct the operation of their business. If union officials are granted sweeping rights to communicate “by any means”, without the tether of physical presence and supervision, there is a genuine risk that communications will occur in ways that distract, disrupt or even divide—not necessarily through bad faith, but a lack of structure.
Equally problematic are the provisions that state that physical entry to a workplace should not be refused simply because non-physical means of communication exist, and vice versa. These clauses, while perhaps intended to protect flexibility, in fact remove the very discretion that employers must retain in managing their own premises. They suggest that the availability of one channel of communication can never justify the refusal of another, regardless of context. Surely that is both inflexible and unrealistic.
There may be very good practical reasons for an employer to prefer one form of engagement over another; a highly secure site may welcome scheduled, in-person access, but find unsolicited, off-site communications disruptive or invasive. A remote or hybrid workforce may prefer written updates to physical visits. By attempting to lock in symmetrical rights to both physical and non-physical communication, the Bill as drafted risks creating conflict where co-operation is needed and rigidity where discretion would be more effective.
Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that union engagement can and does occur outside the framework of statutory access agreements. The purpose of this legislation is not to create an open-ended entitlement for unions to interact with workers in any manner they choose; it is to provide a draft legal mechanism for arranging workplace access for legitimate purposes—access that must be reasonable, structured and proportionate. That mechanism surely must not become a Trojan horse for a much broader intervention in the management of communications within private enterprises.
The cumulative effect of these provisions, if left unamended, would be to tilt the balance too far, away from the well-established equilibrium between union representation and employer control. They would introduce legal uncertainty, operational disruption and potential privacy concerns, all under the banner of modernising union access.
It is vital that we place Amendment 210 in the proper context. The idea that unions could gain access to employers’ digital platforms, including internal communication systems, company email servers and private digital infrastructure, was not part of the original Bill but was added by the Government in the other House only on Report, with minimal explanation and no real opportunity for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. That is simply not acceptable.
This House is now the first truly to consider the full implications of what would, without question, be a major expansion of union access rights into employers’ private and operational space—not their physical space, but their digital infrastructure which is, in many ways, just as sensitive, just as regulated and potentially far more vulnerable. I believe that we must take our scrutiny role very seriously and that this House must now do what the other House was denied the opportunity to do: we have to probe this new power fully and openly.
We are now confronted with a proposal that, for the first time ever, would allow trade unions to reach employees via internal platforms such as company intranets, corporate email systems, Zoom, Microsoft Teams and other work-based communication tools, many of which are governed by strict internal policies, compliance frameworks and even sectoral security requirements.
This is not a theoretical concern. The Bill now provides a broad enabling power, with the detail to be filled in later through secondary legislation. We do not yet know which platforms will be in scope, how frequently unions will be permitted to post or engage, or what rights employers will have to review, edit or even be informed of the content beforehand. We are being asked to legislate on the basis of a skeleton—a blank cheque—with the flesh to be added later by statutory instrument, and that is precisely when parliamentary control is at its weakest. It is in secondary legislation where the balance of scrutiny too often shifts from robust parliamentary debate to rubber-stamping.
So what are we really dealing with here? Employers will, under the current drafting, be expected to engage constructively with union requests for digital access and will be given as little as five working days to respond. This is not merely hypothetical; this is a system designed to operate particularly in workplaces where physical access may be difficult or impossible—for example, remote teams, field-based staff and distributed or digital-first organisations. This may sound practical in theory, but it raises serious unresolved operational questions in practice. Who controls the messaging? Who controls the content? Who approves it? Can unions directly upload material on to a company’s internal platforms, or is it the employer’s responsibility to upload union-drafted content? In that case, does the employer have the right to make edits or raise objections? Can the material be branded? Must it be neutral? Will it sit alongside or appear to compete with official communications from HR or leadership teams?
So will the Government publish guidance? If so, when? At the moment, we just do not know the answers to any of these questions. These are not small matters; they are foundational issues of governance, internal messaging and even risk. For some employers, particularly in finance, defence and data-sensitive sectors, internal systems are subject to strict regulation and security controls. Can they allow access to these platforms without compromising legal obligations? In some cases, they may not be able to grant access, even if they wish to, and in others they may face exposure to reputational or compliance risks if improper messaging is circulated without oversight.
We must also consider the precedent being set. Allowing third-party organisations, however well-intentioned, to access digital systems designed for internal business-related purposes represents a significant departure from current practice. The potential for confusion, conflicting messaging and unintended consequences is high. This should not be rushed through under cover of secondary legislation.
For all those reasons, the amendment before us is entirely justified. It places a necessary brake on an overreach that has not been debated or examined and certainly not consented to by both Houses. If the Government believe that digital access is necessary and can be sensibly and safely managed, then let them bring forward a fully detailed proposal in the proper way. Let us have the opportunity to debate that openly, with all the facts in front of us—not as an afterthought or implication and certainly not as a quietly drafted regulation.
I therefore strongly urge your Lordships to support this amendment. Let us draw a clear line around what “access” means in this legislation and what it does not. If Parliament is to grant new powers, it must scrutinise them fully, which is what this Chamber is supposed to do.
I turn to Amendment 213B, which goes directly to the operational realities of the modern workplace—the way in which access is exercised, whether it involves scheduled meetings, ad hoc visits, group briefings or one-on-one discussions. That all can have a substantial effect on day-to-day operations. The frequency and timing of those visits matter enormously. Daily interruptions at peak hours are not the same as occasional meetings during quieter periods. Repeated unfocused access can, however unintentionally, become disruptive, particularly in sectors where workflow depends on concentration, safety procedures or continuous operations.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to my Amendments 212 and 213. Naturally, I wholeheartedly agree with the excellent points made from our Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, particularly on Amendments 210 and 213B.
My two amendments are probing amendments, essentially, and I think they are very sensible and reasonable. The perhaps slightly more contentious one would restrict these powers to businesses with over 250 employees. I cannot and will not rehearse the arguments my noble friend made about disruption, interference and taking resources and time away from the main job of work in the business. Interestingly, it could be “one or more” trade union officials, so it could be one but it could be 25 going into a small business. We do not know because the clause is drawn very widely and is very permissive. That is Amendment 213.
Amendment 212 is basic good manners and common sense. If you want to facilitate a good relationship between the trade union representatives—properly elected and appointed by the workforce—and the employers, you want an agenda and an objective place that you wish to reach. That might be to avoid industrial action, to look again at a pay offer, to discuss a suspension of a worker or something like that. But what is wrong with giving 24 hours’ notice? It takes the heat out of the potentially disputatious nature of the relationship that you might have between the employer and the trade union representative. I think it is just basic good manners and would make things work better. It does not diminish the role of the trade unionists and it does not undermine their integrity or their bona fides; it just says, “Let’s give 24 hours’ notice to enable a more fruitful and productive relationship to be expedited between the two sides”. For those reasons, I would like the Minister to at least consider the amendments, perhaps with a view to looking at them again on Report.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 214 is designed to provide an effective remedy against an employer which defies an order of the CAC to provide trade union access. This is a situation where the trade union has applied to the employer for an agreement for access and been refused. The trade union has then gone to the CAC and succeeded in obtaining an order for access, which the employer has defied. The employer has had the opportunity to appeal to the EAT and has either declined to appeal or has had its appeal refused. In that situation, the Bill merely provides that a union can apply for a fine to be paid, not to it but to the CAC. That is no real deterrent and no incentive either for the union to enforce the CAC award, knowing that it will not result in compulsion for the employer to obey the order of the CAC. My amendment provides enforcement by way of a High Court injunction. That is an established procedure often used against trade unions for breach of their obligations in relation to industrial action. Some equivalence is surely justified here.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I support Amendments 212 and 213 in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I agree that a 24-hour notice period is necessary, particularly for small businesses, because access to the workplace by third parties can be disruptive. Visitors calling unannounced can disrupt a carefully organised schedule between an employer and his or her employees. The 24-hour notice period would allow employers to prepare for a visit and to reschedule certain tasks. I support exempting smaller businesses from some of these arrangements, because it is very hard to organise smaller businesses with third-party interruptions.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and others. This clause strikes horror in my heart. The idea that someone could come into my business, access my premises with no notice—good luck with that, because I sit in a room on my own—or even worse, access my systems and my server, which are all heavily password-protected because I am regulated, strikes horror not just in my heart. I can assure the Minister, who says that she has consulted business groups, that she will see surveys coming out in the very near future that show the fear, horror and dislike that small businesses have of this Bill, and in particular the clauses we have been debating tonight. I hope she will have the opportunity to meet again with business representatives and listen to what they are saying.
The draftsman on this Bill is working in another era. What does physical access to a business mean? I like the clauses restricting this for smaller businesses, because most small businesses do not have a physical presence. In many businesses, literally tens of thousands of them, the employees work from home. They might have a WeWork office where they meet every now and then, but it is meaningless to give right of access to most small businesses. If we then go to right of access to digital communications, that implies, from the wording I have read, that a trade union official would have to be given the passwords to enter the systems.
What protection is there? What indemnities are there to ensure that this is not abused? We know that abuse happens, particularly in these days of cyber fraud, where someone who has accessed the system could take advantage. Obviously, I am not suggesting that that is going to be prevalent or happen in the majority of cases by any means, but I do not see any protection for small businesses should that happen.
It seems to me that the whole concept of access is misconceived. I would quite understand it if the legislation were drafted to require an employer of any size to pass messages to an employee—I would understand that; it would be reasonable—but can the Minister explain to us why she is demanding access to both physical and digital assets of small businesses?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in particular to the amendments regarding communication with workers. I think it was Amendment 207 but, whichever one it is, I think noble Lords will know. The reason I bring this up is that my noble friend has just referred to aspects of cybersecurity. By the way, I am not suggesting that any trade union would be seeking to cause this havoc, but we know this is a particular challenge. I am struggling to understand how, under wider confidentiality, how anybody would have access to this or be expected to. It may be that the employer is required to pass on an email, I do not know.
I am also struggling to find the justification for this. In introducing the Bill, the Government did not make any reference to digital communication or this other communication; they referred only to physical access. I cannot find any justification put forward by the Minister for this. I cannot find the amendment in Committee, and I am struggling to find the amendment on Report, in the Bill documents on the parliamentary website. I am sure they are there; I am just struggling to find them. I certainly cannot find any reference by the Minister in the other place to why this is deemed necessary. I appreciate that it is not necessarily the job of the Government to do my research for me, but that would be very useful to hear, because it certainly was not in the Bill introduced to the Commons.
I would be grateful if the Minister could give this House a justification, because one of the things that is causing concern among employers’ representatives is this sort of process. It is fairly well established that trade unions are often invited in; that is all part of good industrial relations. The legislation talks about being able to organise. I think the Minister in the other place talked about using it as an opportunity to recruit new trade union members, to organise, to have meetings and so forth. I want to clarify something. The Bill states, in line 15 on page 75, that
“the access purposes do not include organising industrial action”,
so I would be grateful to understand this better. How is the Minister in the other place saying that you can organise different from organising industrial action?
I am genuinely concerned that anyone can just be told, “Please email all your employees with this material”. Fortunately, at the moment, it does not seem that we have prescription that the Secretary of State will write the words that need to be said—I expect they would not be writing on behalf of the trade union—but, again, I am trying to understand why employers would need to allow that to happen. On that, I will draw my comments to a conclusion.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I too shall be very brief. I strongly welcome this new right for workers to have reasonable access to their union representatives at their place of work—that is very important. It is also worth stating the good news that there are many voluntary access agreements already in place. I have had the pleasure many a time of visiting companies, big and small, walking the floor with the managing director and the union representative and having really good discussions, with an opportunity to meet workers and talk about the success of the business.
However, as a union official, I have also been in the position where I have had to meet workers in cafés, pubs, church halls, homes or anywhere, because they were too scared to be seen speaking to a union official outside their workplace with CCTV cameras trained on them. That is the reality that we are also dealing with, but there is plenty of good, practical practice to build on.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she has had a go at Amazon twice tonight. I wonder whether it might be of interest to her to know that it employs 75,000 people in the UK. No one who works there is on a zero-hours contract. The minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which it is currently advertising on the radio. That, obviously, allows parents, grandparents and carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64 billion in this country and £12 billion in the last 12 months. It also supports a network of about 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. It may not be perfect on unions in the noble Baroness’s terms, but it deserves a bit more respect.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord opposite would agree that those workers who joined a union and wanted to have a union voice at work to improve their pay and conditions deserve respect, too, and that union-busting techniques and approaches to avoid even meeting unions to come to an agreement is, frankly, unacceptable in a modern, civilised society.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. This group of probing amendments relates to new provisions in the Bill concerning trade union access to the workplace. Amendments 208A, 209A, 210 and 210A would narrow the definition of access by removing or limiting references to communication with workers, including through digital channels. These changes would raise questions about how access is intended to operate in practice, particularly in light of evolving workplace models. It would be most helpful to hear from the Minister how these changes are expected to support the overall objectives of the Bill and whether they risk narrowing the scope of access in ways that may affect its effectiveness.
Amendments 209, 211 and 213 in this group would also address the application of provisions to small and medium-sized enterprises. Others, including Amendments 213AA and 213B, introduce specific considerations for sectors including healthcare—all very laudable and quite reasonable—or for the timing and method of access for those applications. These amendments appear to probe the balance between ensuring orderly access and managing operational pressures. Could the Minister clarify how the framework, as currently drafted, is expected to work in different types of workplaces as I have alluded to, and how it ensures that both the employers’ and employees’ work interests are taken into account?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendments 208A, 209, 209A, 210, 210A, 211, 212, 213, 213A, 213B and 214.
Before we get into the detail, I will frame my remarks by pointing out that we have heard previously in this debate in quite heated tones a discussion of the role of trade unions in our society. From our perspective as a Government, and from my perspective—for what it is worth, I have been a member of a trade union all my working life—progressive legislation and reform, which we on this side have always tried to pursue through working with the trade union movement, have done much to improve not just the world of work and the rights of workers but the economy as a whole. We are proud of this progress and history. This Bill represents a further stride towards a successful, mature framework for employment relations in this country.
It is important when we talk about striking the balance between employers, unions and workers—in particular, between employers and workers—that we do not equate the two as having equality in terms of power dynamics. That is often missed from this debate. Many employees, whether they work in Amazon’s warehouses, an SME or a microbusiness, do not necessarily feel that they have the same equality of relationship with their employer as their employer has with them. That may be natural, but one of the roles of a trade union or employee representative is to level that playing field. It is always important when discussing trade union rights to bear that in mind.
In Amendments 209, 211 and 213, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are seeking to exempt smaller businesses from Clause 56. The right of access is a key part of our wider commitment to strengthening workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership, participation and dialogue. My noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway ably illustrated why, in some cases, trade unions do not need any improvements to access because they have a perfectly good and amicable working relationship. It is worth noting that in roughly 30% of the cases referred to the CAC the applications have been withdrawn because there has been a voluntary agreement, and that is a very good thing to see. However, there are cases where there is not that level of co-operation and access, which is why the Government are legislating to provide it.
We have heard in debates on previous groups that noble Lords on the Benches opposite think that trade unions are a good thing and have a role in the workplace. I absolutely take them at face value on that. To have that role in the workplace, they need to have access to workers. We cannot be starry-eyed about this; not all employers behave as responsibly and open-mindedly as we all believe they should in creating access for employees to their representatives. That is why we are discussing these bits of the Bill tonight.
The policy we have developed has been designed to be fair, consistent and workable for all employers. We will consult on specific details of the framework before they are set out in secondary legislation, including with the CAC, and we encourage businesses and unions to share their views. I understand the points around legal ambiguity raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, but, in the previous group, we discussed the levels of granularity and specificity in a particular statement that it is proposed that employers should give to employees about their rights to join a trade union. I posit that, if we had had the level of detail that the noble Lord suggested, we would have had a similar level of discontent from Members opposite. That is of course their right, but I make the point gently that you cannot have it both ways.
I turn now to Amendments 212 and 213B. Amendment 212 would require that trade unions provide a request for access to a workplace in writing, and with more than 24 hours’ notice from the requested date and time that access would happen. Amendment 213B would introduce two additional factors for the CAC to consider when making a determination on whether access should occur: first, the method, frequency and timing of the access requested, and, secondly, whether the purpose of access could be reasonably met without physical entry into the workplace. The Secretary of State will, by regulations, be able to set the time period in which an employer is required to respond to a request for access from a trade union, as well as the form that the trade union’s request must take and the manner in which it is provided to the employer.
I will respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, around the difference between this sort of trade union activity and organising for industrial action. As far as I am concerned, it is pretty obvious that this is about organising for recognition, where the legal conditions can be met, and indeed organising for recruitment and awareness for other very reasonable trade union activities, such as promoting health and safety at work, which we all agree is important and worthwhile.
The Secretary of State will also be able to set, through regulations, the circumstances the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made, and we will invite all interested parties to provide us with their views on these matters when we launch our consultation. To pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he may find that 24 hours after the consultation is deemed to be just right, or indeed too short a period. That is the reason for this consultation, rather than just prescribing everything at this point in time. If we had prescribed it in the Bill, and it was less than 24 hours, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would not be at all happy.
Amendment 214 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The proposals in this amendment would make declarations by the CAC under new Section 70ZI(5) enforceable, as if made by the High Court, opening a greater possibility of an employer being found to be in contempt of court. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that new Sections 70ZH and 70ZK, which were introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, already provide for a strong remedy against employers who do not respect these new rights of access, mainly in the form of CAC orders but ultimately backed by serious financial penalties when necessary. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said, these need to be serious financial penalties and they need to have heft. The new sections that were tabled on Report in the other place say that penalties can be linked to various metrics, such as annual turnover or, indeed, the number of workers employed in the liable entity. In the case of large companies, that would make a very serious penalty indeed. We do not want them to be fined; we want them to grant the access to trade unions and trade union representatives that their employees deserve. In our view, the available remedies are already powerful and proportionate. The Government do not consider it necessary to go beyond these.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments 210, 208A, 209A, 210A and 213A. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, are seeking in Amendments 210 and Amendments 208A to 213A to exempt digital forms of communication from the right of access policy. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that can be found in new Sections 70ZA(4)(a) and (b) in the Bill as it left the other place. This clause was designed for the modern workplace and with various working practices in mind. It is important that this clause provides for a digital right of access to ensure that unions can reach workers who may not work in a physical workplace, such as home workers or those who work in a hybrid manner. In my opinion, if I may be so bold, the noble Lord, Leigh of Hurley, answered his own point. As he acknowledged, in some businesses, it is not as simple—
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I am a bit puzzled about how access to digital can work side by side with the protections we have for data security.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I was going to mention it later, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that existing data protection legislation will continue to apply. I do not want to say that shrouds were waved, but there were a lot of quite fanciful hypotheses as to what digital access might involve. To be frank, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested—sorry to pick him out—it could simply mean that employers are, through their own email system, obliged to cascade a message from trade unions to their employees without the trade unions having direct access to the systems at all.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the noble Lord moves on from that point, I am fully aware of where the reference to digital is in the Bill now. The point that I was trying to make to the Minister was to justify why, when the Bill was originally presented to the House of Commons—perhaps I should have been more specific—it was not mentioned at all. I believe it was not inserted in Committee, so it must have come somewhere on Report, but I cannot find any justification made by the Government for why they have added this digital communication when they had not put it in at either the introduction of the Bill or in Committee in the other place, when it has the most scrutiny at that end. I had hoped the civil servants might have sent him a note.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I assume my civil servants understand that I probably know the answer to that question—they might be right, or they may be wrong. To cast my mind to the inner workings of Committee in the other place, the reference in the Bill, as I understand it, is to communication with workers rather than explicitly to digital communication. I sometimes feel that I cannot speak for the way we examine Bills in Committee in this place, let alone in the other place.
We now have the opportunity to discuss, as we are doing, the fact that in the modern day, in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful. Were we seriously to say, not to trade unions but to employees—to workers—that the only way that they could receive a message from a trade union or from an employee representative or, to turn it on its head, from an employer was on a piece of paper or in a one-to-one verbal communication, then I think we would all regard that as fanciful. There is a little bit of sophistry—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Just to expand on this a little further, we are not arguing that unions should not have the right to communicate digitally with workers. That is not the issue; the issue is the right of access. The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer—let us imagine that it is an SME business, possibly run on only one computer, which may contain highly sensitive information; in my case, that would be market-sensitive information— without any controls, references or parameters. I invite the Minister to commit that, before Report, further consideration is made of what such right of access means and the limitations on that right of access. We are not trying to exclude communication to workers; we are just trying to find out the channels and protect SMEs from intrusive activities.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more detail, but this is one of things that will be set out in regulation following extensive consultation. I go back to the original point of principle that I made about levels of granularity in setting out specific channels: if we specify channels A, B and C, as soon as the Bill is published we risk finding that employers are actually using channels E, F and G, because that is the pace of technology as it develops, so we have to retain flexibility.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Will the Minister write to me with a better, candidly, a more comprehensive answer than he has given so far in response to my questions? I would be very grateful.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write. I resist the idea that I am not being candid here. The noble Baroness may not like what I am saying, but the point stands. I am of course very happy to write to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, with more detail.
In conclusion, we expect that, in many cases, employers and trade unions will be able to agree the terms on which access takes place, including for digital access. In the event that there is no agreement, the CAC can impose terms, including terms dealing with digital access. I repeat: the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation. I therefore ask that Amendment 208A be withdrawn and that noble Lords do not press their other amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, first, I say to the House authorities that we greatly appreciate the way they have tolerated the fact that we have gone way beyond the normal rising time on a Thursday, particularly as we are sitting tomorrow at 10 am. In mitigation, I note that we have tried to truncate what is a hugely important group of amendments. There are many things that we would want to probe further, so we will have to return to this on Report.
I thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lady Lawlor, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Coffey for their contributions. I was interested, as always, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, although I hope that she will mitigate the damage she may have done with her remarks about one of the biggest investors in the UK, Amazon.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
This is the second time the noble Lord has taken on my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who made perfectly reasonable comments. I do not think it is a good idea to be patronising in the House.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I am sorry about that discordant note, introduced into what has been a really useful day in Committee on this important Bill.
I hope that people outside will realise that we have been debating a group of amendments that were made at the last moment in the House of Commons. They have not had any scrutiny at all in Committee in the Commons. That is why this House has so much responsibility to ensure that, in a fast-moving digital world, we do not transgress in a way that places employers and employees in an impossible position.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. He asked some direct questions, but we have not yet had the answers to them. It may well be that the Minister will write generally to us all to respond to the points he did not have time to answer today. I appreciate that he has limited time too, but he might like to respond in writing to us all, covering the points that he has not yet been able to deal with.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
On that positive note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
From our Benches, I thank the staff, the clerks and the Deputy Chairman for staying later than they usually would be required to do on a Thursday. I look forward to seeing noble Lords tomorrow.