Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK’s recent trade agreements with India, the United States and the European Union confirm that, under this Government, Britain is back and open for business. These deals open markets and cut tariffs and will contribute to growth across the United Kingdom. For example, our deal with the EU—our closest and largest trading partner—contributes to our promise to reset our relations with our friends and neighbours in Europe. The sanitary and phytosanitary measures and the emissions trading system measures announced at the summit could increase UK GDP by nearly £9 billion by 2040.
Katrina Murray
Cumbernauld is fast becoming a centre for advanced manufacturing, with too many companies to name basing themselves there. Will the Minister set out how the UK’s trade agreements are helping such companies to expand into new markets, creating growth and jobs in places such as Cumbernauld? What steps are being taken to ensure that more Scottish manufacturers can take advantage of these deals?
Mr Alexander
I pay tribute to Cumbernauld’s advanced manufacturing capability. It is estimated that the UK-India free trade agreement will boost the whole UK economy by £4.8 billion and grow trade with India by over £25 billion annually. The Scotch Whisky Association forecasts £1 billion in extra exports and 1,200 new jobs. For Irn-Bru, which I understand is headquartered in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the agreement also removes India’s 33% tariffs on UK soft drinks. This India deal was delivered in the UK as a result of the hard work of our negotiators and the leadership of the Secretary of State, and it will benefit exporters and advanced manufacturers right across our country.
Elaine Stewart
Luxury knitwear products from Alex Begg, based in my Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock constituency, are a great example of quality Scottish exports, and it has a great reputation in leading fashion houses across the world. Like many businesses, Alex Begg is happy to see that good UK trade deals are back in fashion. Will the Minister join me in visiting Alex Begg in Ayr to hear about the importance of trade deals to local businesses with global ambitions?
Mr Alexander
I pay tribute to the craftsmanship and global ambitions of Alex Begg in Ayr. My mother’s side of the family are all from Ayrshire, so it would be a personal pleasure to visit Ayrshire, as my hon. Friend suggests. I would suggest that we could visit Alex Begg during the summer recess, but then again, as Billy Connolly once observed:
“There are two seasons in Scotland: June and winter.”
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Yesterday the Chancellor championed the Government’s supposed trade deal with the United States, but that trade deal is not yet complete. We know that because no impact assessment has been published. Why are the Government popping the champagne prematurely, and have they done an impact assessment on any of the ongoing negotiations?
Mr Alexander
I am grateful that at least one of the Opposition parties accepts that there is a deal. The hon. Member is right to recognise that the implementation phase is what we are now relentlessly focused on. I am sure the House will be aware of the statement issued overnight by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, confirming that the US will expedite the agreed quota for car exports to the United States, reducing tariffs from 27.5% to 10%. The Government continue to work on this important deal.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The UK has a trade agreement with Israel that permits the import of goods produced in illegal settlements. Such goods are effectively proceeds of crime, given that settlements constitute illegal expropriation of Palestinian land. How can the UK justify this complicity in trade of illegally produced goods, and when will we finally see a ban on the import of any settlement goods?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Lady raises a critical issue. The British Government have a long-standing opposition to the illegal occupation of lands in the Palestinian territories, principally in the west bank. We have been clear and consistent that, on the grounds of international law, the responsibility lies with the Israelis to resolve these issues. On the points she raised, it is a significant and contentious enough issue. I will be happy to write to her, but it has been clear for many years that we oppose the settlements and continue to do so.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The gov.uk website, which has not been updated since 8 May, states that the Prime Minister negotiated the 25% steel tariff down to zero, but that is not right, is it? Steel faces a tariff of 25% today and runs the risk of a 50% tariff being imposed next month. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to updating the website, updating this House and updating steelworkers on the state of the negotiations?
Mr Alexander
I am very happy to consider the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the website, but I can assure her that, whether it is the Minister for Industry or the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Government are in constant dialogue with the British steel industry. We will introduce a steel strategy, unlike her predecessors, and we have put serious money behind it. Thanks to the economic prosperity deal with the United States, the UK was the only country to be made exempt from the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium that other countries around the world now face.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a closer trading relationship with Europe after the disastrous negotiations by the previous Conservative Government. We welcomed last month’s new trade agreement, including an agrifood deal establishing a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary zone. The EU is our largest agrifood market, but since Brexit exports are down by 21% and imports are down by 7%. The introduction of an SPS agreement will provide welcome relief to many businesses by reducing costs through the removal of border checks and reducing many certificate requirements, such as for export health certificates. However, businesses and producers cannot plan without clarity, so will the Minister set out a timeline on when we can expect the SPS deal to be implemented?
Mr Alexander
I sympathise with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said. She is right to recognise that post Brexit we have broadly overperformed in services, relative to expectations, but significantly underperformed in terms of goods exports. That was in no small measure because a number of food and agriculture producers were buried in red tape and new paperwork. That is exactly why, as she suggests, the SPS deal is critical. Again, I welcome the fact that, for the second time today, we are being challenged to go further and faster on deals that we have delivered. I can assure her that, as I have said in relation to the United States, we take seriously our responsibilities on the implementation of SPS, but that places responsibilities on the British Government and, in this case, on the European Commission.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
This trade agreement is a huge economic win for the UK—the biggest trade deal since Brexit and the best deal that India has ever offered. As we have heard, it is estimated to increase bilateral trade by £25.5 billion, UK GDP by £4.8 billion and wages by £2.2 billion each year in the long run. It will mean new opportunities for businesses in every part of the United Kingdom.
Alan Gemmell
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am having some import-export issues myself, as my first book, a provocative and racy thriller, is being published in India in July.
Alan Gemmell
It is called “30th State”.
May I congratulate the Secretary of State and former colleagues on this deal, which is great for whisky distilleries such as Lochlea in my constituency. When I was trade commissioner, Conservative Ministers were clamouring for a trade deal with India. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he has managed to do it one year after they failed miserably?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful for that question. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s considerable expertise and service to this country through his commendable work as trade commissioner. I hope that he will advise us all on how to get a copy of his book—perhaps a copy could be placed in the Library. He is right to say that this is a great deal for every part of the UK. It is particularly strong for Scotland, given the iconic reduction in the tariff on Scotch whisky for the Lochlea distillery, and it is strong on Scottish salmon and services. These deals come down to a lot of work not just from the ministerial team but from the whole departmental team. I pay tribute to them and my officials for all their important work in this matter.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Last week I had the privilege of visiting A&M Pure Precision, a long-established local firm in my Smethwick constituency that specialises in designing, developing, testing and machining complex precision components in a range of materials for sectors including aerospace, automotive, motorsport, space and unmanned aerial vehicle engine systems. Given the importance of advanced manufacturing to the local economy, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of how the UK-India free trade agreement—and indeed other agreements—could create new opportunity for such firms and support wider economic growth in the west midlands?
Jonathan Reynolds
What a privilege it must be for my hon. Friend to represent a constituency with so many essential businesses doing such brilliant work for this country. On advanced manufacturing, he is right to say that a set of advantageous positions has been agreed, putting this country at a genuine competitive advantage, particularly in relation to sectors such as automotive and machinery, which I would expect his constituency to benefit from. India is traditionally a very protectionist economy, and it is the world’s fastest growing big economy. Whether it is for goods or services, A&M Pure Precision or the west midlands as a whole, there is so much good stuff here to celebrate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister can expect an autographed copy of the book by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) to be spinning its way towards his office as we speak.
I very much welcome the UK-India free trade agreement. It is good news, but Northern Ireland has a particular protocol issue. I know that the Minister is keen— I know it for a fact, because his answers are always good—that Northern Ireland can receive the same benefits as the rest of the United Kingdom: England, Scotland and Wales. Can he assure us that we in Northern Ireland will also be benefactors?
Jonathan Reynolds
I appreciate the hon. Member’s kind words. He will know that ensuring that everything my Department does works for Northern Ireland is a personal priority for me and for the ministerial team. In relation to exports, I can assure him that Northern Ireland will benefit from the advantageous position that the whole United Kingdom is in. We do have issues in making sure the more complex regulatory position from the protocol in Northern Ireland is working in the best possible way. There are very strong reasons for making that work better, if we can do so, and he has my commitment that we will seek to do that.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
The Government continue to support entrepreneurs through start-up loans via the British Business Bank and through programmes such as growth hubs in England and “Help to Grow: Management” training across the UK. Later this year we will publish our small and medium-sized enterprise strategy, one key element of which will be to signal our determination to do even more to champion our entrepreneurs, including through a new vision for business support, built around the coming business growth service.
Mr Quigley
You will be pleased to know that I do not have a book coming out, Mr Speaker. I am reading the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) has written, and it is excellent, but I should probably say on his behalf that any likeness to characters in this place is entirely coincidental.
I thank the Minister for his response. I have seen at first hand his commitment to supporting Britain’s entrepreneurial spirit, but I worry that on the Isle of Wight unreliable cross-Solent transport is holding back entrepreneurs. Local businesses do not lack ambition; they lack a dependable link to their supply chains. Some are even considering leaving the island. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a long-term solution to cross-Solent travel that supports, rather than punishes, island businesses?
Gareth Thomas
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to championing entrepreneurs on the Isle of Wight. We know that there is huge untapped potential in the entrepreneurial talent across the UK, and we are determined to do even more to unlock it, including on the Isle of Wight. As he will know, the Department for Transport, which leads on cross-Solent travel, has been clear that ferry services to and from the Isle of Wight are vital for islanders and for business. I know he has already had some contact with ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport to discuss these issues, but if he thinks I can be helpful, I will be happy to meet him.
John Slinger
Towns like Rugby have a proud industrial heritage and an exciting present, and we are building a dynamic and sustainable business and industrial future. It was very welcome that the Chancellor revised the Green Book to make sure that investment and economic growth are spread more fairly across the country, beyond the major city regions. Can my hon. Friend set out what support may be available for towns like Rugby to attract and encourage people to start and grow their own businesses—for example, entrepreneurship hubs in towns rather than cities, so that they can play a role, and targeted tax reliefs for firms setting up in places like Rugby?
Gareth Thomas
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to championing entrepreneurs in his constituency. He may know that we already have some 41 growth hubs across England, including the Coventry and Warwickshire growth hub, which provides a bespoke service for first-time entrepreneurs, tailored advice and support to start-ups and those wanting to scale up a business. We are determined to do more to help entrepreneurs and will set out our plans in our SME strategy, which is due to be published relatively shortly.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I recently met a load of entrepreneurs and small businesses in Mid Leicestershire who all have the same concern about the low VAT registration threshold of just £90,000. That is stifling their growth, because it adds a lot of bureaucracy and cost. What representations will the Minister make to the Chancellor to ensure that those small businesses can flourish?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we receive representations on the VAT threshold from a number of small businesses, and we ensure that they are heard by Treasury colleagues. He will recognise that VAT raises a significant sum of money for the public finances, and given the mess that we inherited, we had to take some difficult decisions about those public finances to protect funding for hospitals in his constituency, and indeed other public services across the country.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Recently imposed general product safety regulations have added yet another layer of cost and complexity to exports to the European Union. That is particularly hitting entrepreneurs and microbusinesses, many of which have had to end exports to their EU customers. Did the Department have any discussions with its EU counterparts during recent trade negotiations about exempting small and microbusinesses from those rules? If not, is it doing any work to support small businesses in particular, which have had to end exports to EU customers because of the new regulations?
Gareth Thomas
We have been talking to businesses about what they can do in the light of the new regulations, and we are in the process of improving significantly the range of support available to businesses online. The Secretary of State recently set out our plans for a new business growth service, which will significantly improve the speed and quality of advice that businesses can get from the Government.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
The Employment Rights Bill is the next phase of delivering our plan to make work pay. The Bill is both pro-worker and pro-business, and will see significant benefits for employers. For example, increased worker wellbeing could be worth billions of pounds a year. The Bill will also reduce workplace conflict, which, according to a report published by ACAS in 2021, costs employers around £30 billion a year. The Bill will level the playing field so that those employers who are engaged in good business practice are not forced into a race to the bottom.
Harriet Cross
Yesterday, Scotbeef announced the closure of its abattoir in Inverurie in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, with 90 job losses and another blow to agriculture in north-east Scotland. It blamed rising costs. In April the increase to national insurance contributions came in—a huge tax rise on businesses—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that 109,000 jobs were lost in May, which was the highest monthly figure in five years. It cannot be a coincidence that that happened the month after the NICs increase. How is the Minister’s Department supporting businesses and jobs in sectors such as agriculture, which are having to deal with huge cost increases because of his Government’s decisions?
Justin Madders
I am very sorry to hear the news from the hon. Lady’s constituency. It is the case that 667,000 more people are in work compared with this time last year, and 300,000 fewer people are economically inactive. I am rather surprised that she mentions the national insurance hike, because the Leader of the Opposition was on the radio this morning and was repeatedly asked to confirm whether that hike would be reversed. She failed to do so, and it seems to me that the Opposition are in opposition to themselves.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister seems to be in denial. As a former entrepreneur, I visit lots of businesses in my constituency, and I talk to them about their fears. Not a single one has anything positive to say about the Employment Rights Bill—indeed, they are concerned that it will reduce employment, not increase it, and it has been estimated that it will increase costs by more than £5 billion. The Minister has been asked this before, so he has had a lot of time to think about it: can he name a single business that publicly supports the Employment Rights Bill?
Justin Madders
I can certainly name a number. I also refer the hon. Member to Hansard on Tuesday 11 March, column 953, where I named a small business. A number of other businesses have been in support: Centrica, Co-op, Richer Sounds, Nationwide, Adept, One+All, Pedal Me, Inkwell—there are many businesses that we talk to on a regular basis and that understand that treating staff well is a good thing for those businesses. It is a pro-growth, pro-worker measure.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On 12 June 1996, a Conservative Minister stood at the Government Dispatch Box and said:
“Labour’s minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs”.—[Official Report, 12 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 248.]
They were wrong then and they are wrong now. With particular focus on the Teesside region, what steps are the Government taking to bring more well-paid jobs to people to make sure they can spend more in our local economy?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are so many echoes of the minimum wage debate, it is uncanny. As time has shown, the minimum wage has raised living standards in this country and it is something we are very proud to have implemented. We are looking to bring more investment across the economy. Recent surveys have shown that business confidence is increasing as a result of decisions made by this Labour Government.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made clear earlier, the ONS statistics are very clear: 109,000 fewer on payroll in May alone and 276,000 fewer since the autumn Budget. As UKHospitality points out, the NICs changes were
“felt most intensely by foundational sectors like hospitality,”
which “necessitates an urgent review”.
My question to the Minister is simple: where will his red line sit? How many more jobs have to come off payroll before the Department for Business and Trade will stand up to the Treasury on this? Another 100,000? A million? Where is the line?
Justin Madders
Again, it is interesting that those on the Conservative Front Bench do not seem to be in agreement with their own leader any more about the national insurance hikes. I will just point out some statistics to the hon. Member: the International Monetary Fund has predicted that growth will increase this year and the Lloyds business barometer found that business confidence was up. We are putting money back into people’s pockets and investing in this country. We are doing things that the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years and that is why they are out of power.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
Just last month, we relaunched the Board of Trade to focus on the targeted support and help that small businesses need to take up opportunities from the UK’s free trade agreements. The recent trade deals with India, the United States and the European Union aim to reduce red tape, improve customs processes, slash tariffs and open new markets for small exporters up and down the UK.
Liz Twist
Small businesses—like Rezon in my constituency, which makes groundbreaking brain protection sports headwear—are working hard to grow and export, but it is often hard to know where to get the right advice. What practical support are the Government giving to small businesses to help them export and take full advantage of those trade deals?
Gareth Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the opportunity to attend a wide-ranging roundtable with local businesses in her constituency, at the end of last year. Our new workshop, “Introduction to Export”, is in collaboration with the North East combined authority, and is aimed specifically at helping local small businesses that are thinking about exporting to new markets for the first time. A range of other support is available on the Government website, and that will be significantly improved as a result of the coming business growth service.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
We have announced plans to reform business rates, launched high street rental auction powers for councils that will help businesses to access currently vacant properties, worked with industry to open over 150 banking hubs, and introduced the Crime and Policing Bill to provide retailers with greater protections from assault and shoplifting. Our forthcoming small and medium-sized enterprise strategy will set out our further plans to help businesses on the high street and beyond.
Aphra Brandreth
Chester South and Eddisbury is home to some truly special high streets, lined with independent shops and pubs that play a vital role in the life of our communities. I have spoken to local business owners, especially in hospitality, who are already feeling the pressure. Following the spending review, the chief executive of UKHospitality said that
“the overwhelming challenge holding back hospitality from meeting its potential is the current tax burden”.
Does the Minister accept that unless action is taken to ease the burden on high street businesses, especially in hospitality, the Government risk undermining the very communities they claim to support?
Gareth Thomas
I say gently to the hon. Lady that when she had the conversations that she says she had with businesses in her constituency, I am sure she pointed out the huge economic mess that this Government inherited and the £22 billion black hole in public finances. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to make some very difficult decisions in last year’s Budget. We have set out a series of plans that will make a genuine difference on our high streets, including new opportunities to persuade landlords to open up premises for rent. We will set out further plans in the coming small business strategy, and our industrial strategy will also help to generate growth in high streets and beyond.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The town of Burntwood in my constituency has a high street that has been struggling after 14 years of neglect by the Conservatives. One of the things holding Burntwood back is the lack of access to high street banks. Will the Minister update us on what the Department is doing to support access to banking in our high streets as a key pillar of driving the regeneration of high streets like the one in Burntwood?
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the need for face-to-face banking in communities and high streets up and down the country. We are committed to working with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, but we also think that the Post Office can do more to help to improve access to banking services. On the particular issue in his constituency, if it would be helpful, I would be very happy to sit down and talk to him about what else he might be able to do to secure a banking hub for his constituents.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Retail Jobs Alliance is very clear in its warning that the Government’s changes to business rates will
“accelerate the decline of high streets, reducing footfall…and creating a cycle of economic downturn.”
That letter was also signed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—a Labour-affiliated trade union. Once again, the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade have a choice. Will they stand up for high street retailers, actual employers and even their own affiliated trade union, or will they just go along with Treasury diktat?
Gareth Thomas
Once upon a time, the Conservatives supported business rates reform to help the high street; the hon. Gentleman now seems to be shifting his party’s policy. Indeed, time after time his Government promised that they would reform business rates, but one of the reasons they lost the confidence of British business at the last election was because they did not act to reform business rates. We have said that we will introduce permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out our initial thoughts on that in the Budget in October, and we will publish an update on where we are on that issue in the coming months.
Greg Smith
We support business rates reform, but when Labour’s own trade union says that its plan is not going to work, Ministers should really sit up and listen.
Let me turn to another issue affecting our high streets: shoplifting—which continues to devastate many high street retailers. I see that in my own constituency in high streets in Princes Risborough, Wendover and Great Missenden. How is the Minister actively engaging with the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and police forces to move shoplifting up the agenda across the board, just as my home force of Thames Valley has done with its Disc scheme? Before he comes back with police numbers, let me tell him that there are more police in Thames Valley than ever before, let alone since 2010. Just talking the talk on numbers is not enough. What is he going to do proactively to make this issue go up the agenda?
Gareth Thomas
I think the hon. Gentleman, in his own way, is congratulating the Government on increasing police numbers in his constituency, and he is certainly right to do so. We have committed to an extra 3,000 police officers over the course of this financial year and a total of an extra 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are also taking action to end the immunity that his party introduced for shoplifters and taking steps to increase the powers that the police have to take action when shoplifters and others are violent against retail staff.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
Our small business strategy will be published later this year and will set out our plans to champion entrepreneurs, improve access to finance and help small and medium-sized enterprises to reach more markets and adopt new technology. As I alluded to earlier, we are developing our plans for our new business growth service, simplifying access to support and advice for small businesses. We are also tackling the challenge of late payments, including the introduction of a new fair payment code and upcoming legislation requiring large companies to report annually on their payment performance.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
In Aylesbury town centre, we have some fantastic businesses, from Darlington’s to the Rockwood pub and Nafees bakery. They provide an amazing service to the community, but with issues such as traffic, parking and antisocial behaviour, they can struggle to get customers into town and through their doors. I congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing, but can he tell us more about how his small business strategy will support our high streets and town centres, like Aylesbury, to thrive?
Gareth Thomas
I very much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency and the roundtable we had with some of the fantastic businesses there. I very much hope that Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire council will finally get its act together and sort out some of the traffic and parking issues she mentioned. We will set out our plans to do more to help small businesses across the country, including in Aylesbury, in our SME strategy. One particular measure that we will be able to take action on is to improve access to finance for small businesses, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s significant increase in the capacity of the British Business Bank yesterday.
Joe Powell
Small businesses on our high streets across my constituency, from Earl’s Court Road to Queensway, Notting Hill Gate and Portobello Road, are fed up of being blighted by candy shops, low-grade souvenir shops, Harry Potter shops and even barbershops, with accusations of VAT and business rates evasion and even links to money laundering and serious organised crime. Can the Minister outline what steps the Department is taking, in conjunction with the Minister responsible for high streets, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency, to crack down on these operations and create a legitimate level playing field for our small businesses?
Gareth Thomas
I recognise that my hon. Friend has been very persistent on this issue, and he is entirely right to be so. We have been working with colleagues in the Home Office and the National Crime Agency to take action to crack down on illegitimate businesses that threaten to undermine the legitimate ones that exist on all of our high streets. In March, the National Economic Crime Centre co-ordinated a three-week crackdown on barbershops and other cash-intensive businesses where there were concerns, visiting almost 400 premises and securing freezing orders over a series of bank accounts totalling more than £1 million.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for his answer, but I really do need to press him, because my constituents in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes are as fed up as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) with seeing high streets dominated by dodgy vape shops and unlicensed barbers. While some of those businesses are legitimate, a recent BBC investigative report shows that many are involved in money laundering and organised crime. Obviously, the Minister is aware of the situation, but is he working closely with the Home Office to try to tackle this blight? We probably need a national strategy, not a three-week operation.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is right to say that this is not just an issue for our high streets, such as those mentioned by our hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), but a concern up and down the country. The National Crime Agency and Home Office colleagues are seeking to take action against illegitimate businesses, and my hon. Friend will recognise that the announcement in yesterday’s spending review of additional police officers, with more to come over the spending review period, will help us with that activity.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
If the book that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) has written is a political thriller about fighting for small business, I am sure it features five heroes on the Government Front Bench doing everything they can to promote small business. But readers will ask, “Who is the villain of the piece?” Is it not obvious that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is doing everything possible to undermine business, with 276,000 people having lost work since the autumn statement, and 109,000 in the month of May alone? When will the Ministers—the heroes of this story—fight against the Chancellor, who is getting so much so wrong?
Gareth Thomas
It is a little while since I have been called a hero by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am glad that I have finally had some recognition from him. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a villain at all; indeed, I think the spending review she announced yesterday will help to unlock investment in our high streets and our small businesses up and down the country. The record investment in research and development and in infrastructure, and the additional capacity for the British Business Bank, will help to unlock billions of pounds of new investment and many more job opportunities across the country.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Charlotte from Harpenden and her family run Gatwards, one of the oldest family-run jewellers in the UK. It is a small business that has been there for so many years, but it has been hit by the rise in national insurance contributions and changes to business property relief and inheritance tax, meaning that it will shelve plans to hire staff and the premises are in peril. Will the Minister work with the Treasury to review the impact of these policies on small businesses and our high streets?
Gareth Thomas
We will always work across Government with the Treasury to look at issues that affect businesses, whether on the high street or beyond. In the discussions the hon. Member has had with the particular businesses in her constituency, I am sure she will have noted our plans to reform business rates, which will help many businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. She will also have noted that more than 40% of businesses will pay no business rates in the coming year.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Lky7 Sports is a small cycle and nutrition business in Ashford in my constituency. It has been hammered by the loss of small business rate relief, and wrote to me yesterday saying:
“The Government say that they are helping small business, but this is a joke when our business rates have gone from nothing to £1,800. We are seriously considering closing the shop down.”
What advice does the Minister have for that boss?
Gareth Thomas
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman— I say this gently to him—will have explained to that particular business that we inherited a very difficult economic situation because of the decisions that his party took, including on tax, but our small business strategy will set out more plans to help small businesses, such as the one in his constituency. Our business rates relief package will make a significant difference for retail, hospitality and leisure. [Interruption.] He asks when we will publish the small business strategy—it will be shortly.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The Department is making good progress developing our industrial strategy—a strategy that has been called for by industry for many years and opposed by the Conservatives for ideological reasons. We have launched our consultation, we have met industry and thousands of businesses across the land, and we are finalising our report, which we will be publishing shortly. The spending review announcements yesterday on investment will add to the business growth in the country that we all want to see.
Alison Hume
British bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis announced yesterday that it is consolidating its operations in the UK to its Scarborough facility, placing 400 jobs in Falkirk at risk. The company is warning about competitive imbalance, the increasing market share of Chinese bus manufacturers and an absence of incentives for British-built vehicles. How are the Government planning to support British bus manufacturers as part of our industrial strategy?
Sarah Jones
This is a challenging and difficult time for the workers and their families at Alexander Dennis, as well as for the local area. As Members would expect, I have engaged extensively with ADL’s senior executives alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Department for Transport and the First Minister of Scotland to discuss what we can do to support. We wrote jointly to the company, offering to support it in any way we can. There are many issues that we tried to talk through with its representatives. Bus manufacturing sits with the Department for Transport, so it is taking the lead, but we are working together to do what we can.
Kenneth Stevenson
Do the Secretary of State and the Minister agree that the industrial towns and villages that make up Lanarkshire must be central to any modern industrial strategy? Will they meet me, potentially in Airdrie and Shotts, to hear more about the excellent skills and potential that exist throughout the constituency that could undoubtedly contribute to their and this Government’s ambitious work?
Sarah Jones
Of course, our industrial strategy will speak to the whole country about the way that we are supporting businesses to grow and thrive. We have identified eight growth-driving sectors as the arrowheads of growth, but there are also policies that we believe will lift the whole country. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the support that the local community showed in the recent Hamilton by-election, and look forward to talking to him further.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
As part of the Government’s industrial strategy, will the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology carefully consider Somerset’s bid for an artificial intelligence growth zone? Its unique advantages—the Gravity local development order, and its existing connections to the grid—make it an ideal location to boost jobs and growth.
Sarah Jones
We have very big ambitions for AI and growth across the country, and I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about his proposals. I am sure that he has already talked to colleagues in DSIT, but I am very happy to take this matter further.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Cyber-security will be a key pillar in the industrial strategy. That is welcome news in my constituency of Cheltenham, which is already a centre of excellence in the sector. We are on the cusp of unlocking £1 billion-worth of investment at the Golden Valley development in west Cheltenham. I know Ministers are aware of that, as are their colleagues in many other Departments. A planning application is expected very soon. Will Ministers join me in urging the two councils—the borough council and the county council—to get on with it and unlock that investment, which will bring growth to Cheltenham and the nation and, crucially, support defence as well?
Sarah Jones
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are doing what we can to unlock the planning challenges that people have faced for many years in a whole range of areas. We are introducing legislation to do that, and making several changes. I obviously cannot comment on specific planning proposals in his area, but he should be reassured that we are doing what we can to encourage growth.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
We have been promised a modern industrial strategy for nearly a year. First, it was going to be with us in the spring; then it was going to be published at the spending review; and now it will be here “shortly”. The industrial strategy seems to be a strategy to clobber industry with higher taxes and higher business rates. Will the modern industrial strategy have greater longevity than the Office for Investment? It was announced in October, and we were not given an update until last Thursday, when it launched. Yesterday, we were told in the spending review that it is now being restructured. What is the future for the Office for Investment?
Sarah Jones
I can guarantee the hon. Lady that our industrial strategy will have a longer shelf life than hers did; I think it lasted 18 months—I am not entirely sure. We forget, because it did not have much of an impact. We have worked with all industries across the country to put together a comprehensive package that will make it easier to do business in the UK, and support our city regions and clusters across the country, where we have excellent industry. It will turbocharge the eight growth sectors, and it will make the Government more agile in interacting with business. That is why we are reforming the Office for Investment, as we have always said we will. It is now a significantly more substantial organisation, and will give significantly more support. The hon. Lady should look at—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am really bothered, because we have only got to question 8, and I still need to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome yesterday’s announcements from the Chancellor on investment in public infrastructure projects. However, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union has warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for the new defence and nuclear projects outlined by the Chancellor. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted that a shortage of skilled workers would be a critical stumbling block for growth. As we continue to await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, why are the Government moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, when we know that they support social mobility? More broadly, why did they not seize the opportunity in yesterday’s statement to commit to fixing the apprenticeship levy, to ensure that money is invested in skills and training?
Sarah Jones
Forgive me for my long answers, Mr Speaker, but there is a lot to talk about in the industrial strategy, and I like to talk about it. The hon. Lady raises an important point. There is a significant skills challenge, and we will not shy away from it. Yesterday, £1.2 billion for skills was announced in the spending review. We have announced £600 million for construction skills, because that is a big issue for building the infrastructure that we need. We know we need to go further, and we are working closely with industry on how we can use the resources we have to recruit the welders, engineers—
Mr Speaker
Order. If there is so much to say, the Minister should bring forward a statement, or let us have a debate on this very important subject. I do not know how she will explain to MPs that they will not get in, because I am now going to topicals.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Since our last oral question time, we have secured three major trade agreements to boost British exports and drive growth across the UK. This Government are delivering trade deals that benefit businesses and put money in workers’ pockets, and are securing deals that other Governments promised, but failed to deliver. We have an agreement with our largest trading partner, with the biggest economy in the world, and with the fastest-growing big economy in the world. As we have heard, the India deal alone will boost wages by £2.2 billion a year when fully operational. Our new strategic partnership with the EU could add nearly £9 billion to our economy by 2040, and the UK was of course the first country to secure a deal with President Trump. I can also confirm that in the past week, we have hosted delegations from the US and China, in order to assist them in their negotiations with each other. As I have always said, under this Government, the UK will be the most open and best-connected economy in the world.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his excellent work. The Government’s decision to suspend their trade negotiations with the Israeli Government last month was absolutely the right one, but some constituents have been in touch in confusion after trade envoy Ian Austin’s visit still went ahead. Can the Secretary of State affirm that this Government’s position is that we will not be deepening our trade ties with the Israeli Government while the situation in Gaza and the west bank remains so appalling?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, I can reaffirm that position. As she says, the Foreign Secretary announced on 20 May that we have suspended negotiations on an upgraded free trade agreement with Israel in response to the egregious actions of the Netanyahu Government in Gaza and the west bank. Of course, the UK has existing business relationships with Israel that are not affected by that decision, and we maintain trade envoys with both Israel and the Palestinian territories. What we all want is peace, a two-state solution and a strong UK relationship with both states.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Postmasters who were hit by the Horizon scandal will be concerned to hear Sir Alan Bates describe the compensation process as a “quasi-kangaroo court”. Can the Minister reassure postmasters about the redress that they are due, and reassure taxpayers about the redress that he is seeking from Fujitsu?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and she is absolutely right to draw attention to the continuing need to speed up compensation to sub-postmasters. Since we came into government, we have increased fourfold the amount of compensation paid to sub-postmasters, but there is an awful lot more to do. On the issues that Sir Alan Bates raised, the hon. Lady will know that under the group litigation order scheme, through which his compensation issues are being addressed, there are various independent points on the journey at which to consider the offer—
Mr Speaker
Order. If Ministers do not want Members to get in, please will they say so, because they are taking all the time from Back Benchers, which is really unfair to them? Back Benchers have put forward their names and come here to ask questions, and Ministers are just enjoying themselves too much.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he will do what he can to promote his constituency, and the extra funding for the British Business Bank will really support his area.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Jonathan Reynolds
I understand the prominence of the issue in the right hon. Member’s constituency. We already import a significant amount of ethanol from the US: 860,000 tonnes of bioethanol. We recognise the competitive pressures that the US trade deal will bring—it is obviously not yet in operation—and have met the companies affected and continue to negotiate with them. They are already very distressed and lose significant amounts of money, so what they really need are regulatory changes from the Department for Transport for the market as a whole. I can assure him that we are working on that.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Through our small business strategy, we will set out very shortly further plans to support businesses to get on the high street. The increase in money in the British Business Bank, announced yesterday by the Chancellor, will also significantly increase access to finance for such businesses.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is absolutely right to raise it. UK product safety law is clear: all products must be safe before they are placed on the market. As she sets out, goods sold via online marketplaces are becoming a significant problem. That is why we introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will allow the introduction of clear obligations for e-commerce businesses, in order to ensure consumer safety and a level playing field. We intend to consult on product safety requirements for online marketplaces very shortly after Royal Assent.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely accept that invitation, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are already extremely involved, as is the Minister for Industry. We welcome what has happened with Airbus, but we are focusing a great deal on the RemainCo and the issues there.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Last year, the Secretary of State joined me on a visit to our vibrant high street in Pangbourne. I recently met the owner of one of those businesses, Nino’s, a fantastic trattoria and deli. One issue that Nino raised with me was the regulatory burden on his business. How will the Government’s small business strategy deal with that key challenge, and how will it support small businesses like Nino’s, so that they can continue to thrive?
Jonathan Reynolds
We had a wonderful visit about a year ago, and I hope the Pangbourne Cheese Shop is still going strong. Yes, the regulatory burden on small business is a huge area of attention for this Department; there is the business growth service, our action on late payment, and our incentivising of digitisation and e-invoicing.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Our farmers and growers can survive only if there is a functioning supply chain, but since the creation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, they complain bitterly about continuing poor practice and the risk of de-listing. Does the Minister not agree that it is time to beef up this organisation, and to amalgamate it with the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator?
Justin Madders
We had a Westminster Hall debate last week in which a number of these issues were raised. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are undertaking our fourth review of the GCA. I encourage him and other hon. Members to contribute to it. We are considering the points made in that debate, and we will welcome any comments in the review.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I very much welcome yesterday’s investment in UK energy abundance, but as our Committee pointed out on Friday, the success of the industrial strategy will depend on a plan to cut industrial energy costs now. When the industrial strategy is published, will the Secretary of State reassure us that there will be a plan to ensure that UK energy prices are internationally competitive?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Select Committee for all their work in this area. He knows my view from the evidence that I have given. The significant increase in industrial energy prices under the previous Government is a significant issue for our competitiveness—and yes, that is something that we seek to address.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
When it comes to bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis and the jobs at risk there, there is not an elephant in the room—there is a Chinese dragon. The company is in competition not with commercial organisations from China, but with entities of the Chinese state. What representations will the Secretary of State make to the Prime Minister in an attempt to level a playing field that is currently about as flat as the Galloway hills?
Jonathan Reynolds
I firmly agree with the hon. Gentleman that a level playing field is not just an economic necessity, but a matter of economic security and production in western economies like our own. Of course, if a company has a specific case to make, it should make the representation to the Trade Remedies Authority directly—I have that power, but it would usually come from industry. If the company has a specific case to make, the hon. Gentleman should encourage it to make that representation.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It was fantastic to hear the Government’s commitment yesterday to making the UK a defence industrial superpower. At its peak, Stocksbridge Speciality Steels, in my constituency, produced 15% of global defence and aerospace steel, which is essential to our national security. What work is the Secretary of State doing to secure Stocksbridge Speciality Steels so that this valuable steel asset can be used to maintain our national security?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend knows that I believe the workers at that mill in her constituency are a national asset and that I want them to have a strong future as part of our overall steel strategy. We are closely monitoring the specific situation there, which colleagues will be aware of, and are determined to find the outcome that she and I would want to see.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister routinely states his unwavering support for Ukraine, yet as a result of UK Government inaction, British businesses continue to bankroll Putin’s brutal war on a colossal scale. Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, a whopping £205 billion of Russian fossil fuel exports have been shipped by our own UK-based maritime companies or by ships with our own UK-issued insurance. Astonishingly, one company, Seapeak, has carried almost a quarter of Russia’s liquefied natural gas exports. Can the Secretary of State give us an update on what the Government are doing, and deal with this immediately?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am concerned by the figures the hon. Gentleman raises; if he writes to me, I will look into that immediately. We have taken extensive action to sanction not just individuals, but the shadow fleet, as it is described, transporting Russian fossil fuels, and are willing to take any action necessary.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Dad Shift campaign organised hundreds of dads to come to Parliament to campaign for better paternity leave. Does the Secretary of State agree that better paternity leave can give dads more security to spend more time with their babies, support the development of children and help gender balance in the workplace? Will he tell the House whether the issue will be covered in the upcoming parental leave review?
Justin Madders
I am sorry that I was not able to meet the Dad Shift campaigners yesterday, although I have met them previously. I can assure them and the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and home lives, and we recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements play a key role in that. We know that the leave system needs improving, which is why we are committed to conducting a review, which will look at paternity leave and pay and the length of leave available to fathers and partners. More detail on the review will be set out before the summer recess.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The chief executive of UKHospitality estimates that there will be an extra £1 billion of costs on employers for new workers—774,000 of them—coming in to the national insurance contributions regime, on top of £2.4 billion in other costs. If, by the next Budget, it turns out that the previous Budget is crushing the hospitality sector, will the Government consider tax reliefs in order to power our hospitality industry?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman knows the Government, and the Treasury in particular, monitor the impact of all taxation. I have to be frank with colleagues: I have no idea what the Conservatives are trying to tell us today. They seem to want more spending and lower taxes—it seems like Liz Truss is still hanging around the party, to be honest. I have to ask Members on the Opposition Benches: what is your policy towards national insurance?
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the UK-India trade deal, which is good for salmon and good for whisky. Will the Secretary of State use his muscle to ensure that a chain of small distilleries in my constituency and across Scotland can sell a wee dram to India, as well as the big brands?
Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the House’s attention to reports of a crash on take-off of a London-bound Air India flight from India today, and allow the Secretary of State to express our concern.
Mr Speaker
It is very important, and I think the Leader of the House will make reference to it when we get to business questions—if we get there.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for updating the House on that matter. He will know that one of the brilliant things about the UK-India deal is that it is not just for the higher-value, iconic products we are all familiar with; for bulk, there is no minimum price in the deal. The deal is incredibly strong for every bit of the whisky—and gin—industry in the United Kingdom.
I am alert to the news my hon. Friend has just shared, and colleagues will update the House.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Greenergy, a company based in Immingham, has been forced to shut down and review some of its operations in the UK. In part, that is due to an influx of heavily subsidised hydro-treated vegetable oil from the US. Will the Secretary of State bear this in mind when he has trade negotiations with the US with a view to easing the situation?
Jonathan Reynolds
I shall of course take that up with the hon. Member. I have spent a fair bit of time in his constituency, as he knows, on one matter or another. On fair trade and level playing fields, colleagues can direct their industries to the Trade Remedies Authority if they have specific concerns, but, of course, we monitor those matters at a departmental level as well.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Since the global financial crisis, listing on the London Stock Exchange has fallen by 40%, posing a significant barrier to growth, as liquidity and investor activity decline. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that more British businesses are listed on the London Stock Exchange and that the UK remains a leading global financial sector?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is an area of concern to us all. We support and continue to implement some of the listing rules and prospective changes of the previous Government, but the bigger change from this Government is to liquidity, particularly around pensions reforms. None the less, this remains an issue of key competitiveness for the United Kingdom.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne businesses Qualisea, Gianni’s and Gr/eat are up in arms, as I am, that East Sussex county council’s shambolic management of the Victoria Place pedestrianisation means that works will now fall in the summer, their busiest trading period. What provision will Ministers make to ensure that businesses hit by such disruption can be properly compensated?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not have the details of that specific case, but if he wants to write to me I will happily look into it.
Mr Speaker
That completes questions. We will now let the Front Benchers change over.
Business of the House
(1 day, 3 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 forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for next week is as follows:
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 this 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 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 Member’s Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 June will include:
Monday 23 June—General debate on Pride Month.
Tuesday 24 June—Estimates day (2nd allotted day).
Wednesday 25 June—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 26 June—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill, followed by general debate on Armed Forces Day.
Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
As the House will know, we have incoming news of a terrible disaster involving a flight out of Ahmedabad in India. I know that the Leader of the House will want to say a few words, but, from the Conservative Benches—I am sure that I speak for the whole House—let me wish everyone involved and their families the very best.
It would be a bad day this week if I did not mention the fantastic news of the knighthood of Sir Billy Boston—it is nice to be able to do that. I hope you will admire my restraint, Mr Speaker, in not mentioning your birthday and therefore not giving any incentive to any other Member of the House to mention it in their remarks either.
I had the dubious pleasure, as you did, Mr Speaker, of listening to yesterday’s spending review in this Chamber. It brought to mind President Abraham Lincoln’s immortal line about managing to compress the greatest number of words into the smallest amount of content. I am afraid that the statement was somewhat worse than that. It was, in both its design and delivery, an exercise in distraction and sleight of hand—a document not of economic strategy but of political evasion.
We should be clear from the outset that this was a spending review, not a Budget. Unlike a Budget, it was not subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Chancellor’s figures have, therefore, not been externally verified. Her assumptions have not been stress-tested, and her projections have not been independently reviewed. She was not required to publish the full fiscal implications or to give the embarrassing numbers in her own remarks—and, of course, she did not.
Even within the confines of departmental budgets, the presentation was, I am afraid, somewhat disingenuous. A final year outside the actual spending review period was included, filled with speculative figures designed to suggest rigour and restraint in budgetary control. This is the illusion of discipline without the reality of delivery. In case any Member is interested, this is on page 13 of the document. Elsewhere, baseline figures were conveniently shifted; most comparisons began from the year 2023-24, not the current year, which had the effect of inflating the apparent scale of any increases.
Sizewell C is a classic example. The document trumpets a near 16% increase in investment. In truth, spending over the period is falling by 3.7%. That is on page 44. Similarly, on police funding, the Chancellor was very careful in her language to say that there would be an increase in “police spending power”, but what she meant was that there would be an increase in the local authority precept: in plain English, a tax rise.
The same obfuscation was at work with overseas development aid. The Chancellor has always said that ODA cuts were needed to fund defence, but the reality is that defence increases are almost entirely in capital spending, while ODA is a cash line. Far from funding our national defence, what has actually happened is that overseas development aid has been cut to prop up other Departments’ day-to-day budgets.
The most obvious case is defence spending: we were told in grand rhetoric that it would rise to 2.5%, and later 3%, of GDP at some undefined moment when fiscal circumstances allow. In fact, it is unlikely that even 2.5% will be reached this Parliament. The 2.6% quoted includes the single intelligence account, which suggests that the number is below 2.5%. The defence investment plan—the plan that will release the money—is unlikely to appear until the end of the year. That is nearly 18 months after the 2024 general election—this at a time of war in Ukraine, and with China potentially positioning itself for conflict over Taiwan by 2027.
On Monday NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, echoed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, said that unless NATO members raise defence spending to 3.5%, with an additional 1.5% in wider support, we may as well “start learning Russian”. That is the strategic context. The Government’s response has been to dither and delay.
The Chancellor’s U-turn over the winter fuel payment badly damaged whatever credibility she ever had. Yesterday’s statement has compounded the problem for her and the Government. No mention was made of the estimated 5% annual council tax increases now expected, as flagged by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. No admission was made that the review will add £140 billion in new borrowing. That is an extra £10 billion a year in interest payments, at current rates, by the end of the period. Meanwhile, the supposed efficiency savings of nearly £14 billion are widely regarded as illusory.
As the Chancellor herself said about the spending review, these are her choices. But the truth is plain: there will be a tax cut for the people of Mauritius. For the rest of us, the spending review was a gigantic speculative splurge of spending, presented via smoke and mirrors, which will end up, as it always does with Labour, with higher taxes, and British taxpayers will have to bear the impact.
Lucy Powell
I start by saying that the thoughts of the whole House and the Government will be with the families of those travelling on flight AI171 from Ahmedabad in India to London Gatwick, which has reportedly crashed. This is an unfolding story, and it will undoubtedly be causing a huge amount of worry and concern to the many families and communities here and those waiting for the arrival of their loved ones. We send our deepest sympathies and thoughts to all those families, and the Government will provide all the support that they can to those affected in India and in this country.
I congratulate Billy Boston on receiving a knighthood for his services to rugby league—during your birthday week, Mr Speaker. I know that as a former patron of rugby league, you felt very strongly indeed that it was about time rugby league was recognised in this way, and you might want to mention that later.
Given that I know it is of great interest to the House, I am pleased to update colleagues on the ratification of the BBNJ—biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—oceans treaty. Our oceans are dying, and without urgent action they will be irreversibly destroyed. I am proud to confirm to the House today that this Labour Government will introduce legislation before the end of the year to ratify the high seas treaty and protect marine life around the world. We were all shocked by Sir David Attenborough’s film about the destruction caused by bottom trawling, which this Government will ban in protected British waters.
I am really happy, as ever, to debate the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on the economy. He used to be a Treasury Minister and he is well read. He knows, I am sure, what every economist in this country knows, which is that for many, many years, the UK economy has been defined by low growth and stagnant living standards, because of our comparatively low productivity. That is because we have had years and years of under-investment in our infrastructure, in our services, in our regions and in our people. This Labour Government are finally putting that right with a 10-year renewal plan to rebuild Britain and address the productivity gap. I am not sure whether the Conservatives really understand basic economics, because they are showing no sign of it.
In my part of the world and yours, Mr Speaker, that has been particularly true. Towns and cities across the north and the midlands have been held back by woeful transport infrastructure that would be unacceptable to people in the south; held back by the lack of job opportunities near where they live; held back by poor, insecure and costly housing; held back because they are not getting the training and skills they need; and held back because their life chances are lower as a result of deep-seated inequalities.
That cannot be addressed overnight, and we are not pretending that it will be, but we have a long-term plan for renewal. That includes the biggest investment in affordable and social housing in 50 years; nuclear and renewable infrastructure transforming communities around the country; the north finally getting the rail connectivity it deserves; and every community getting better buses. Schools and hospitals are being rebuilt for the 21st century, based not on fictional budgets and economics but on actual plans to deliver them. We are addressing today’s cost of living crisis, too, with our warm homes plan to bring down bills, by extending free school meals and free breakfast clubs, with more free childcare, with a cap on bus fares and by increasing the wages of the lowest paid—with wages going up more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than they did in 10 years of the Conservative Government. Finally, we continue to boost the NHS, which has already resulted in waiting lists coming down month after month.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about choices, so let us talk about those choices. We would not have been able to set those things out if we had not made the difficult changes to taxes that we made in the Budget last year. He seems to want more spending for the police and defence—I think that is what he was saying—but he does not want to make the hard decisions about where the money will come from. He mentions yet again the 2.5% of spending on defence, which this Government are delivering, but he might want to remind himself of when defence spending reached 2.5% in the last 20 years. Was it in any of the 14 years for which his Government were in office? No, it was not. It was only when Labour was last in government that we reached the heights of 2.5%.
In contrast to the Conservatives’ fantasy economics, yesterday’s spending allocations were all within the envelope that we set out in the Budget last year, so we are really clear where the money is coming from. As ever, their economic argument is utterly incoherent. On the one hand, they say that we are spending too much, and on the other that we are not spending even more on police and defence. They criticise us on growth, yet they do not want the investment to turbocharge our productivity and, therefore, our growth. We are the party with a plan—a plan to renew Britain, a plan to raise living standards in every part of the country, a plan to get our public services back on their feet and a plan to give people the security they need in their homes.
Mr Speaker
To follow on from what the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House have said, all our prayers and thoughts go to the families of the London-bound aircraft that has crashed. Let us hope there is better news to come on that.
I was tempted by the Leader of the House when she talked about the knighthood for Sir Billy Boston. I just hope that it will be like London buses and we will see further knighthoods for rugby league—I look forward to none more so than the news of Sir Kevin Sinfield.
Let us try somebody from Yorkshire; I call Jon Trickett.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I very much associate myself with your comments about Kevin Sinfield, Mr Speaker, who is a hero for the whole nation and a great role model.
On the question of the north, the Leader of the House is right. In the great northern town of Featherstone, there is increasing irritation about the way in which the absentee and irresponsible owners of the former Junction pub are allowing it to deteriorate. It is now in a dangerous condition and I fear that somebody will be badly hurt. The process of dealing with dangerous structures is too long, too bureaucratic and too cumbersome. Please may we have a debate in Government time—I think lots of Members will have the same experience—so we can share our experiences and see whether the Government can push things forward?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to raise the difficult issue of the Junction pub in his constituency. We all hear those stories time and again. We want to give local communities more powers to have the right to acquire such facilities, and for those powers to be exercised more quickly than they currently are. We are bringing forward legislation in that regard, but he might want to club together with others to get a debate on the issue.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
May I echo the thoughts and sympathies that have been sent to all those involved in the Air India crash that is being reported? I know that many British citizens will be affected, and our thoughts are with them.
I recently joined Essex police on a ride-along in my Chelmsford constituency to witness at first hand its vital work in our local communities to keep us all safe. Worryingly, Essex police has regularly raised with me that the national funding formula, known as the police allocation formula, is outdated and unfair. The funding that Essex police receives falls far short of the proportion of policing carried out by the force in a national context. Yesterday’s spending review did nothing to change that or to remove concerns about police funding overall. Indeed, the chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that in real terms, the increase in funding
“will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases for officers and staff.”
He added that
“the amount falls far short of what is required to…maintain our existing workforce.”
If we want to keep crime off our streets and retain the experienced officers who do such vital work to keep us safe, surely we must give them the funding to match. Yesterday’s spending review did not do that. Will the Leader of the House therefore raise those issues with both the Treasury and the Home Office?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for expressing her thoughts on the India crash as well.
She raises an important issue about adequate police funding. All our constituents want to see more police on the streets and crime in their communities coming down. This Government are committed to more visible police on the streets and to increasing neighbourhood police numbers by 13,000. Yesterday’s spending review announced an above-inflation increase in police funding of 2.3%, which we believe is an adequate settlement for the police. The hon. Lady is right, however, that we need to bring forward reforms to make sure that we have better distribution of funding and that we can have efficiency savings on police procurement and other issues. We will, as is our commitment, bring forward legislation in that regard in due course.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the new banking hub in Penistone, which I visited this week. However, other parts of my constituency remain a banking desert. The Stocksbridge and Deepcar Townswomen’s Guild raised the urgent need for a hub in Stocksbridge and we desperately need one in Chapeltown too. Otherwise, my constituents have to trek all the way to the centre of Sheffield to have cash access and to receive in-person advice from their bank. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can secure those essential grassroots financial services for those areas in my constituency?
Lucy Powell
Access to banking and financial services remains a huge issue for many MPs across the House. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend has a new banking hub in Penistone, but I recognise that Chapeltown needs that service too. We are rolling out 350 banking hubs. Over 100 of those are already open. There was a well-subscribed debate on this issue in the House last week, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister gives her an update on the banking hubs in her constituency.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
A third of my constituents emanate from Gujarat, so my thoughts and prayers are with the families and relatives who are obviously concerned about the plight of the 242 passengers on that flight. I understand that the plane came down in a residential area, so the people who live there will also be affected.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and for announcing the estimates days. Estimates day applications can be obtained from the Table Office or the Committee’s website. We welcome applications. They will close tomorrow at the rise of the House, and we will be considering applications for debates at our meeting on Tuesday at 4.15 pm. Anyone applying should expect to turn up and present their case. We intend to allocate three debates each day, with a preference given to those who were unsuccessful in the supplementary estimates days.
In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, in Westminster Hall next week, on Tuesday there will be a debate on hydrogen-powered aviation, and on Thursday there will be a Select Committee statement from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, followed by debates on the role of careers education in improving social mobility and on Down’s syndrome regression disorder. On Tuesday 24 June, there will be a debate on the right to maintain contact in care settings. On Thursday 26 June, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, followed by debates on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit during the second world war and on the funding of the BBC World Service.
In recent weeks, I have raised the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh. I have also raised the atrocities in Pahalgam, but now things have come home to this country. Earlier this week, three young Indian boys were playing cricket in Headstone park. They were approached by three slightly older men. An altercation took place, and the three young boys were hospitalised, one with a fractured eye socket. We understand that the police are dealing with this as an aggravated racial assault. It took place between young Hindu boys and older Muslim men. The police are appealing for witnesses to come forward to see who the perpetrators are, and community leaders are trying to take down the temperature so that there is no escalation. But if this type of religious hatred is going to come to this country, we desperately need the Home Secretary to make a clear statement about what the Government will do to prevent it from happening. I ask the Leader of the House to facilitate that next week.
Lucy Powell
May I first send my thoughts to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents? When I first heard of the crash, I thought of him, knowing the demographic of his constituency. If any of his constituents need help and support, the Foreign Office, the authorities and the Government here stand ready to support them. I thank him for announcing future Back-Bench business, particularly the estimates days, which are important debates in the calendar year.
I am sorry to hear about the attack on three young boys innocently playing cricket in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He raises these issues time and again in the House. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending the clear and strong message that we absolutely stand against any kind of sectarian religious hate or violence like that and that we will take whatever steps necessary to eradicate it.
We have two days of debate on the Crime and Policing Bill next week. There are further measures in that Bill in relation to attacks on places of worship and on memorials, which would include religious memorials. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman wants further action on these issues, so if he does not get a chance to raise them with the Home Secretary next week, I will raise them for him.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Glasgow City football club in my constituency recently won 2-0 against Hearts, securing the team a place in the UEFA women’s champions league. I was delighted to be at that game cheering the team on. It is a fantastic achievement and a testament to the hard work of the team on and off the pitch, spearheaded by club co-founder and chief executive Laura Montgomery. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Glasgow City the best of luck for their European campaign, and will she consider a debate in Government time on the importance of supporting grassroots women’s football?
Lucy Powell
I am absolutely delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Glasgow City football club on its achievements and I wish the team all the very best in their European campaign. Women’s football and grassroots women’s sport are discussed regularly in this House, and I am sure that she will continue to raise those matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. My intention is for business questions to run until around 11.45, so if we can help each other by speeding through, that would be really good. I call Sir Roger Gale to set a good example.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Government have pledged to enhance the record of the previous Conservative Government and uphold animal welfare. Retained European regulations currently prohibit the handling of chickens by their legs, but in their first act of animal welfare, the Government are proposing to pass regulations to permit that harmful practice. Will the Leader of the House ask the agriculture Minister to write to me—and place a copy of the letter in the Library —to explain why the Government are choosing to lower the legal standard rather than to uphold the law and protect animal welfare?
Lucy Powell
The Government are committed to introducing the most ambitious programme of animal welfare in a generation. I am not aware of the particular regulation that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but I will ensure that he gets a full response from the Minister and that it is made available for everybody else.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Government data released last year shows that homeschooling figures have doubled since 2019. Although I wholeheartedly welcome the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ensure that all children are safe, many parents in my constituency actively and positively choose to home-educate their children, and it is safe and reasonable for them to do so. On behalf of her Cabinet colleagues, will the Leader of the House reassure home-educating parents in my constituency and across the UK, who are doing a fantastic job of educating their children, that the Bill will safeguard educational freedom and honour the incredibly positive impact that parents can have on their children’s development? Will she consider a debate on the merits of alternative forms of education?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of homeschooling. She is right to say that many families provide high-quality and important education for their children where it is not available to them in the mainstream. I am sure that she will agree that we must tackle absenteeism in school, which is particularly rife since covid, and that we need to get more children back into mainstream education. Although children are home- schooled for good reason, some are not safe at home, and we must take steps to deal with that.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
This weekend, with the team from my parliamentary office, I will be taking part in the Knaresborough bed race, a fantastic local community event, to raise money for Knaresborough Town AFC. Will the Leader of the House congratulate in advance all those who take part and hopefully finish, as well as the organisers of the event, and will she consider a debate in Government time on unique and culturally important sporting events?
Lucy Powell
I am not quite sure that I understand what that race is, but it sounds very unique to Knaresborough, and I will take an interest now that the hon. Gentleman has raised it with me. That would make a good topic for a debate.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Yesterday’s spending review saw this Government investing in national renewal. To truly deliver on that, it is vital that small towns such as those in my constituency fully feel the benefits. We need local investment strategies to address the things that hold our areas back, such as a lack of a commuter rail link in Rossendale or overreliance on a single road in Darwen. These solutions are inevitably unique to an area, requiring investment plans that are locally led but nationally backed. Small towns like mine need to be at the heart of our national renewal, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on that vital subject?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said earlier, the lack of investment in many of our northern towns and cities has really held those communities back. I am well aware of the challenges in Rossendale and Darwen and how much his constituency could flourish if it had better rail and road connectivity, and I look forward to working with him on that.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I remind the Leader of the House that when I referred to the prayer tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition against the Mauritius treaty, in early-day motion 1398, she was unable to give an undertaking that this will be debated within the 21-day period laid down by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010?
[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.]
However, in a subsequent answer to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), she made it clear that the global ocean treaty would not be ratified until the necessary legislation had been passed. Can we take it that the Mauritius treaty will not be ratified until the House has approved the legislation providing for the very substantial expenditure that it involves?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that with me again. I have looked at these issues closely since he and others raised them with me last week. As he will be aware, with the Diego Garcia agreement and the global ocean treaty, ratification depends on this Government implementing many of the commitments that are made in that treaty. That is why the CRAG process, as well as legislation, is required in both cases. There will be a Bill brought forward on the Diego Garcia agreement, and therefore this House will have ample opportunity to debate its merits and vote on it.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
In 1993, my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald tragically lost their daughter Claire and 11 other pupils in a school minibus accident. Together, we have been campaigning to make school minibus travel safer. The NASUWT union found that many teachers are still being pressured to drive school minibuses without the appropriate training, because of a licence exemption for schools. That exemption does not exist for private schools. Will the Leader of the House find time for the House to discuss the issue of school minibus safety?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She is absolutely right to raise that here and with others. It sounds like a good topic for a debate, because I am sure we would all want to know that our children were safe on school transport.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
When the Bank of Scotland branch closes later this year in Pitlochry, the town will desperately need a banking hub. That is why I was disappointed that the independent assessor and Link assessed only access to cash, not access to banking. I challenged Link on that, and it said that that is because of the mandate set for it by the Financial Conduct Authority; so I challenged the FCA on that, and it said that that is because of the regulatory framework in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023; so I challenged the Treasury on that and asked it to change its regulatory framework and imposition on the FCA. The Treasury said it will not do that. In opposition, Labour tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would have mandated a survey of access to banking services, not just access to cash. Can we have a debate in Government time about how we fix this utter guddle?
Lucy Powell
Yes, we have just had a good debate on it! This issue comes up often—it has already come up today. We have banking hub deserts in Scotland and the rest of the UK. We are committed to addressing that with the opening of banking hubs. We will, I am sure, have ample opportunity as various pieces of legislation pass through the House to discuss any changes to regulations, but I will ensure the hon. Gentleman gets a proper response about those regulations.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
First, as co-chair of the India all-party parliamentary group, may I express my condolences to the families affected both in this country and in India? I cannot imagine what they are going through, and I thank the Leader of the House for offering her support and the support of this Government.
Every single year, the horse fair comes to Mountsorrel and my constituency. I have no doubt that the vast majority come to enjoy it, but there are always reports of antisocial behaviour, harassment and businesses and homes being damaged. It is unacceptable, and that antisocial behaviour is incredibly damaging. I call on everyone who comes this year to do so in a way that is enjoyable but peaceful. Will the Leader of the House set out what this Government are doing to address crime and antisocial behaviour in my community?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in hoping that everybody who goes to the horse fair in his constituency does so for the right reasons and because they want to celebrate that event, rather than to cause criminality or antisocial behaviour—I am sure we all recognise that. We want to take steps to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and give the police more powers to do that, and that is what our Crime and Policing Bill will do. I hope that everything passes off well for his constituents.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that Queen’s hospital in Romford, which serves the boroughs of Havering, Barking and Dagenham and of Redbridge, is in urgent need of an A&E upgrade. Indeed, I met the Minister for Secondary Care only this week to discuss it. May we have an urgent statement from the Government on this issue? The situation has led to many patients being left on trolleys for more than 24 hours. The hospital serves 800,000 people in that radius, and that is simply not acceptable. Please can some of the money from the statement yesterday be spent in Romford on a hospital that serves local people?
Lucy Powell
It is good to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting our spending review measures yesterday and the increased funding that we are providing to the NHS in both capital and revenue. That is to tackle the issues that he describes: the chronic underfunding of our A&E over many years, and the unacceptable delays that many people face in accident and emergency departments around the country—my husband works in one, so I am well aware of the issues. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman voting with us when we implement the spending review. There will be a statement shortly on how that money is being allocated.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when we are likely to see the public authority accountability Bill, which will introduce the Hillsborough law on duty of candour? Are we likely to see it before the summer recess, and can we have an assurance that it is not being watered down at the request of mandarins in the Cabinet Office?
Lucy Powell
As I have said, the Government remain very much focused on fulfilling our commitment to the Hillsborough families—and indeed to many other families affected by injustices and scandals—and to bringing forward and enacting a Hillsborough law, which of course includes a duty of candour. Most importantly, we need to ensure that we get the legislation right, and that it reflects the full range of concerns and experiences and meets the expectations of the families. We are working on the Bill at pace, but we will take whatever time is necessary to work collaboratively and get the legislation right.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Transferring from legacy benefits to universal credit seems to be overly complicated, and makes it difficult for my constituents not to find themselves in debt. As an MP, I feel that my hands are tied. We are seeing constituents coming forward with rent arrears and in very difficult situations. May we have a statement from the Department for Work and Pensions on what is being done to make the transfer easier? I am concerned that people are falling into deep poverty and facing civil actions in the absence of better Government support.
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear that some of the hon. Lady’s constituents are facing challenges moving from legacy benefits to universal credit. She will be aware that the Government made changes to the debt aspect of universal credit, which put money in the pockets of many people in that situation, but I will ensure that she gets a full update on where we are up to.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the Ukrainian St Mary’s trust, which in recent years dramatically scaled up its community school to serve more than 2,500 displaced children, and pioneered new trauma-sensitive methods of education? Will she consider making time to debate its proposal to set up the country’s first bilingual Ukrainian secondary school in Kensington and Bayswater, delivering on the education section of our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine?
Lucy Powell
That sounds like a really interesting proposal, which my hon. Friend is right to raise. This country has now given sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians since the war broke out, of which I am sure we are all incredibly proud. We all recognise the contribution that they are making to our country. I will ensure that a Minister from the Department for Education gives him a reply about the new school.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Across Keighley and Ilkley, there are many fantastic independent businesses that rely on footfall for customers to come through their doors. However, after hiking parking charges in Ilkley earlier this year, Labour-run Bradford council has now decided to strip away our free one hour on-street parking from the town centre and, quite rightly, local businesses and residents are up in arms. On top of the whopping 10% increase in council tax and increases in business rates, Bradford council is now scrapping free car parking, so does the Leader of the House feel that will be to the detriment of our many businesses and residents across the constituency?
Lucy Powell
As a constituency MP—I represent Manchester Central—I am well aware that parking charges in local communities cause a great deal of contention among our constituents. I am not sure about the reasons behind that decision in Ilkley, but local authorities are balancing the needs of a range of different residents on these matters. It would make a popular topic for a well-subscribed debate.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Woodlands Quaker care home, in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, on its work? It is an excellent non-profit residential care home, providing accommodation for older people so that they can live as well as possible. As a charity, it prides itself on having a high staff ratio, with 70 members of staff, many of whom work part time, for 36 residents. However, even with the increased employment allowance, it now faces a significantly higher employer national insurance liability, adversely affecting its operating costs. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can support adult social care providers, which in turn will ease pressure on the NHS?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. He is aware that we took the difficult decision to raise employers’ national insurance contributions so that we could get our NHS back on its feet, and that is what we have been doing since the Budget. We are providing the support needed against any knock-on effects to social care providers and key charities, particularly through the additional boost that we have given to local authorities in their funding. He may want to raise this issue with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who will be in the Chamber shortly.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
My constituent Mr Wayne Arnold has compiled a dossier of faults following an ECO4 upgrade at his home last year. I have the lever arch file here—it is two inches thick and well worth looking at. It has taken 62 weeks for the works to be completed. Another constituent, Judie Haines, cannot find local engineers to service the ECO4 system that has been put into her home. The company has become insolvent, meaning that my constituents cannot get remedial works completed. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the poor work that has been carried out under ECO4, the effect that that has had on vulnerable households and the lessons learned as we move on towards ECO5?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the experiences that the hon. Lady’s constituents have had under ECO4. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), made a statement to the House a few weeks ago, when this Government uncovered the real challenges of the previous scheme, which had been introduced under the previous Government, and the poor level of some work that had been carried out. We are taking steps to put that right and ensure that we learn all the lessons from that for the next phase, and I know that the Minister will be keen to keep the House constantly updated on that.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The Government recently announced £7.5 million of funding for the British Sugar factory in my constituency, support that unlocks a further £43 million of investment. In Liz Truss’s former constituency, this Government are investing to secure growth. The Wissington factory is Europe’s largest sugar beet factory and is celebrating its 100th birthday this year. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming that investment and wishing the Wissington factory a very happy birthday?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in wishing the factory a happy birthday and I am delighted to hear about the extra investment in British Sugar in his constituency. It highlights how important it is to get such investment and new jobs into communities such as his, so that his residents can access the good jobs of the future. I am sure it will give us all a very sweet aftertaste.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is common ridings and festival season in the Scottish Borders, a spectacular and ancient tradition dating back to the battle of Flodden in 1513, bringing together each of the Borders communities to celebrate, so may we have a debate on the importance of the Scottish Borders common ridings and festivals? Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Selkirk’s Royal Burgh standard bearer, Darren Knox, and to wish him very well for this week’s Selkirk common riding?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Darren Knox and wishing him the very best as he participates in the common riding. I did not know of that great tradition in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency until he mentioned it to me, and it sounds like a fantastic thing to celebrate.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I stood on a promise to stop sewage polluting our waterways in Bolton, and under this Labour Government I am delighted that we are turning that pledge into action. Last year alone, 295 days-worth of sewage was dumped into Bolton’s waterways. That is nothing short of a disgrace. I welcome the decision to block bonuses for United Utilities bosses, whose shameful record has gone unchecked for far too long. When asked to fix the problem, they pleaded poverty while pocketing massive bonuses. As a fellow north-west MP, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time United Utilities was held to account and stopped profiting from environmental destruction?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. What has happened in our waterways in recent years—the pollution and the discharges—is absolutely shocking. I am so proud that one of the first acts of this Labour Government was to introduce the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is now an Act. That has given us the powers to tackle the erroneous and unwarranted bonuses of water companies such as United Utilities, and I am really glad to see the Act in action.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Voices is a domestic abuse charity in Bath that supports victims to recover from the long-term trauma and stresses of domestic abuse. It is in a new funding crisis, because mandatory funding goes into crisis and immediate risk-management services, not long-term recovery. May we have a debate in Government time on the vital importance of long-term recovery from domestic abuse and the financial support needed to keep charities such as Voices going?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the struggles that Voices in the hon. Lady’s constituency is experiencing. She will know that this Government are absolutely committed to halving violence against women and girls over the next 10 years. That is an incredibly ambitious agenda, and of course it includes working with the voluntary and charitable sector. I will ensure that the Minister for Safeguarding gives the hon. Lady a full reply about that charity.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In Burslem, a memorial to our Royal Doulton fallen was very sadly lost. I am proud to have joined a campaign led so brilliantly by Mike Lightfoot, ably supported by the former MP Joan Walley, St Modwen Homes and others, to reinstate the memorial, which will be unveiled on VJ Day this August. With Armed Forces Day approaching, will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Mike and the team for their commitment to ensuring that those who made the ultimate sacrifice will never be forgotten?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating all those who worked to reinstate that important memorial, and commemorating all those who gave their lives and sacrificed so much to keep this country safe in many ways. We have a general debate on Armed Forces Day on 26 June, and I am looking at requests that I have had from other Members about a particular debate for VJ Day before we break up for the summer recess.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Many of my constituents and millions across the country suffer from arthritis in its various forms. Earlier this week I met Arthritis Champions who are seeking a Government strategy to tackle this issue. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from a Health Minister on how the Government will take that forward?
Lucy Powell
I know from dear family members of the plight of those who suffer from arthritis and the huge impact it can have on their lives and their ability to work and live a happy and long life. We can do a huge range of things for arthritis, such as new treatments, prevention and early diagnosis, and I am sure that a Minister will want to come forward to this House with a whole strategy.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
At the height of the pandemic, Mr Speaker, you may recall the establishment of the Rosalind Franklin laboratory and national testing facility, which we were promised would be retained after the pandemic for more general testing. Sadly, it was unceremoniously put up for sale on Rightmove a couple of years ago. May we have a debate on, or a review into, the provision of diagnostic testing more generally in this country?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear that the testing facility in my hon. Friend’s constituency closed under the last Government, despite their previous commitments to it. He will be aware that we will soon set out the 10-year NHS strategy, and as part of that I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to put those kinds of questions to the Secretary of State.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Authoritarian regimes are increasing their attempts to silence those who stand up against them, wherever they are in the world. That includes the Hong Kong Government, who have issued arrest warrants and million-dollar bounties for 19 activists in exile, including 10 who are resident here in the UK. Tomorrow, the father of one of those activists, Anna Kwok, will attend a hearing in Hong Kong, charged with helping with her finances using funds from a life insurance policy. It is the first time that an activist’s family have been arrested and charged, so may we have a statement from the Government on how they will legislate to specifically recognise and criminalise acts of transnational repression?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and many others raise human rights issues with the Chinese authorities on many occasions, and that we have given people from Hong Kong safe sanctuary in this country, which is something I am very proud of. The contribution to our country of those from Hong Kong is something we should all celebrate, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a full response on the case he describes.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Last September, in Liverpool, the Prime Minister promised my city and all those affected by state cover-ups that a Hillsborough law would be introduced before 15 April this year, the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. Almost two months have passed since the Prime Minister missed that deadline. This is particularly disappointing, since a draft Hillsborough law written by legal experts and endorsed by survivors, families and campaigners is ready to go—it was proposed in Parliament by Andy Burnham. Will the Leader of the House allow time to discuss this matter, so that the Government can hear loud and clear the message from this place that a failure to introduce a Hillsborough law worthy of the name will be seen as a continuation of the betrayal of families and survivors of Hillsborough, and of all those affected by state cover-ups?
Lucy Powell
I very strongly hear what my hon. Friend is saying. At these times, we always remember those affected by the Hillsborough disaster, particularly their plight ever since in fighting for justice and accountability. That is why this Government are committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, which will include a duty of candour. As I said in answer to a previous question, it is vital that we get that legislation right—that it is workable and watertight in legal terms, but also meets the expectations and needs of the families and all those affected. That is why we are working at pace and working closely with the families and their representatives, and we will bring forward that legislation at a time when we get it right.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Government’s decision to cut personal independence payments by changing the eligibility criteria is a double whammy for carers, who risk losing their carer’s allowance if the person they care for no longer qualifies for PIP. Given that it is Carers Week, will the Leader of the House raise this issue with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and make time for a debate so that we can discuss the far-reaching impact of these changes?
Lucy Powell
This Government are absolutely committed to supporting carers, and we have already taken steps to do so. We recognise how worrying it is for people when we are discussing changes to PIP and what those would mean for passported benefits such as carer’s allowance. As the Green Paper sets out, we will be considering all of these issues in the round, including how we can support carers as part of this package.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Chopwell is a small village in my constituency, but this weekend it will see hundreds gather from around the world as it hosts cycling’s pump track world championships UK qualifier on Sunday—the only track of the competition in the UK. It is a fantastic opportunity to showcase our vibrant community and brilliant local facilities on the world stage. May we have a debate in Government time on the importance of local communities playing their part in delivering worldwide events?
Lucy Powell
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will never tyre of hearing about the great events in Members’ constituencies, and this sounds like a wheely good one. [Interruption.] No? Okay, we will do better next time. I thank her for raising that event.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Government’s own projections showed that their vindictive education tax would drive 3,000 children out of private education. The latest data shows that the exodus is already 11,000, with projections saying it will get worse. May we have a debate in Government time to find out why the Government’s projections were so horrendously out, and the cost to the state sector of now having to educate those children?
Lucy Powell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the numbers he describes are within the normal fluctuations of these things. I am not clear whether this Conservative party supports getting more teachers into our state schools. As a result of the changes we have made to VAT on private schools, we have got over 2,000 more teachers in our schools this year, with more to come. It is vital to get more teachers into state schools, which educate 94% of young people in this country.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It will not have escaped the attention of Members of this House that Britain is in the grip of a viral addiction that has collapsed websites, stripped shop shelves bare and had the staff of Castle Chocolates in my Carlisle constituency working round the clock to feed it. I am of course speaking about Dubai chocolate. Will the Leader of the House not just join me in thanking the staff of Castle Chocolates, who are literally working round the clock, but give us time for a debate on the entrepreneurship of our small businesses and the contribution they make to our cities?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating Dubai chocolate, and I congratulate Castle Chocolates in her constituency on meeting that demand. It shows the opportunity that social media brings to small businesses in parts of our constituencies; we should always remember that when we discuss issues around social media. I will join her in having a few Dubai chocolates later.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
As a person of Gujarati heritage and an MP who represents a large number of Gujarati constituents, I, too, would like to express my shock, horror and sympathies over the devastating news coming out of India. Like the rest of the House, I pray and hope beyond hope for some good news. Recently, I have spoken to many nurseries in my constituency who have served close-knit, hard-working communities for generations, including Shanklin day nursery, Nursery Rhymes and Saffron pre-school. They all tell me that they are struggling and one is to close imminently, due to a combination of rent increases from the council, increases in employer’s national insurance, the low rate provided by the Government for free childcare places and their no longer being able to charge for additional services. Will the Leader of the House kindly commit to scheduling a debate on how we can improve funding for our vital nurseries?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Gentleman in sending all my thoughts and wishes to his constituents who may be worried and affected by the news coming out of India regarding the inbound flight to Gatwick. It is truly devastating. This Government are committed to more childcare places and more free childcare. That is what we are rolling out. We have more money going into school-based nurseries, too, so that families can access that provision. I hear what he is saying this morning; the issue would probably make a good topic for debate.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
May I start by associating myself with the sympathies given over the news coming from India this morning, which will be causing great anxiety to many of my constituents? The Ascension Eagles cheerleading team of Silvertown have just returned triumphant from an important event in Florida. As a sports fan, Mr Speaker, you will know that almost 100,000 people take part in cheerleading now. It has recently been recognised by Sport England, but it often goes unrecognised by the wider public. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to do more to shine a light on grassroots sports that often do not get recognition? Will she start today by congratulating the Ascension Eagles on their success in showing the Americans what talent the girls and boys of east London have?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is certainly a great cheerleader for his constituency and for this sport, which has been raised with me before. It provides great opportunities for people to engage with sport and showcases what can be done.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. There is a chronic shortfall of staff in radiology and oncology. Those shortages mean that people find out they have cancer later and treatments are delayed, worsening survival rates. Is the Leader of the House aware that 2,910 more clinical radiologists could be recruited if money spent outsourcing demand was spent within the NHS? Can we have a debate in Government time to scrutinise those shortfalls?
Lucy Powell
We have inherited a very difficult situation when it comes to cancer diagnosis and many other diagnoses across our health service. That is why we are boosting healthcare spending in the coming years, as we did yesterday in the spending review. We will publish a dedicated national cancer plan shortly, and that will include how we can identify and diagnose cancer earlier.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently had the privilege of meeting the Seaton Sluice defibrillator group—an amazing group of volunteers who have managed to secure funding for 16 defibrillators in the village, and who also provide training and servicing for them. Can we have a debate on how we can support groups such as the Seaton Sluice defibrillator group, and will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating and thanking all the volunteers who support them in this effort?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the volunteers in her constituency for getting those defibrillators, because they can absolutely save lives. It is really important that we get them into as many communities as possible, and we are committed to improving access to them. As ever, I am sure they would make a good topic for a debate.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Emma from Tring lives with a rare genetic connective tissue disorder as well as comorbid conditions, which means that she lives in pain every day. Despite that, she has worked hard to build a great career in the NHS. Although she understands that reform to disability allowance is needed, the changes absolutely terrify her. Simply functioning on a daily basis comes at a significant physical and financial cost, and she has lost her personal independence payment, which will lead to her deterioration and to the loss of her career. Can we have a debate about the impact of the changes to disability allowance, especially on those who proudly use it to get into work?
Lucy Powell
I hear what the hon. Lady says. Many of us have met constituents with fluctuating illnesses like the ones she describes, and I understand that this is a worrying time for people. We have had the Green Paper. We will shortly bring forward a piece of legislation to consider further the eligibility criteria for the personal independence payment, and I am sure that she will want to debate them.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Yesterday I hosted an event for 70 leading experts ahead of World Continence Week. This included campaigners for the Bins for Boys campaign, which aims to ensure that everybody has the dignity of being able to dispose of items like stoma bags, catheters and pads. One of my guests was Pete Reed OBE, a three-time gold medallist and retired lieutenant commander who is now a patient advocate. He highlighted the fact that we do not have suitable bins in our male toilets. Could the Leader of the House please support the campaign to ensure that bins are available for the dignity of our guests?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises the really important issue of World Continence Week and the availability of appropriate bins to dispose of things in men’s toilets as well as in women’s. I am sure that we can take up those issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, on behalf of my party, may I covey our thoughts and prayers for the people involved in the air crash in India? I think it is appropriate that we do so.
I wish to raise the urgent case of prisoner of conscience Junaid Hafeez, a Pakistani lecturer who has been sentenced to death on widely condemned blasphemy charges. Since his arrest in 2013, his trial has been repeatedly delayed and he has faced solitary confinement after attacks in prison. His first lawyer was killed, highlighting the danger in defending freedom of expression in Pakistan. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office what representations the Foreign Secretary has made to the Pakistani authorities and international partners to secure Junaid Hafeez’s release, ensure a fair trial, push for blasphemy law reform and ensure full religious freedom?
Lucy Powell
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue? The Government remain deeply concerned about the use of blasphemy laws to undermine human rights in Pakistan, and those conversations between our Government and other Governments happen continuously. The Foreign Secretary is in his place, so I am sure that he has heard the hon. Gentleman’s call.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
June is indeed a very special month for birthdays—as you will know, Mr Speaker, given that you celebrated your birthday this week. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the 100th birthday of the Doncaster Free Press and recognise the importance of local newspapers in our regions?
Lucy Powell
Well, I can confirm that it was not Mr Speaker’s 100th birthday—he falls well short of that. Weren’t you 21 again this week, Mr Speaker? I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Doncaster Free Press and all our local newspapers on continuing to provide a trusted source of local news that many of our constituents rely on.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
On Friday last week, a mass brawl broke out outside a primary school in my constituency, with children as young as four and their families witnessing violent acts, and they were understandably scared. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning this disgraceful behaviour and in commending Cleveland police and the school for their response, and can she secure a statement from the Justice Secretary to ensure the perpetrators of such crimes feel the full force of the law?
Lucy Powell
I of course join my hon. Friend in condemning this awful incident in his constituency. I thank his local police and the school for their swift response, and I look forward to justice being served.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, as a proud Lancastrian like myself, you will be aware that this Friday is Whit Friday, and that across the north-west we still have a strong tradition of Whit walks and carnivals, where brass bands play to our local communities. Some of our fabulous local bands, including Milnrow, Wardle Academy, Wardle Anderson, Littleborough and Bloom Music will be performing at the internationally renowned Saddleworth and Oldham Whit Friday band contest. Will the Leader of the House join me in blowing their trumpet—or, more appropriately, cornet—and have a debate in Government time on the brilliance of brass bands across the country?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend may be slightly better at puns than me, but I join him in celebrating Whit walks. I can confirm that his constituency does a great turn at that, and I join him in trumpeting all those in his constituency who participate.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This is Carers Week—9 to 15 June—and Carers Week 2025 is focused on caring about equality. Millions of people across the UK provide unpaid care for an ill, older or disabled family member, and their support is worth a staggering £184 billion a year to our country. In my constituency, we are very fortunate to have a wonderful organisation called Carers of West Dunbartonshire, which provides outstanding support to unpaid carers and helps promote equality of opportunity for carers. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising their efforts, and thank the staff and members of Carers of West Dunbartonshire for all they do throughout the year?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the carers in his constituency and right across this country. The Government remain committed to supporting carers. They do a fantastic and wonderful job—and, as he says, they also save the state a huge amount of money through the work they do.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
A well-established local business and employer in my constituency is facing an ongoing and costly administrative issue with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It has been trying since January to close an outdated VAT bond that is no longer required, yet despite repeated attempts, including formal letters to six HMRC departments, it has received no response. Virgin Money continues to charge fees for this unnecessary bond, placing an unfair financial burden on a company that employs local people and contributes to our local community. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how HMRC can be made more responsive and accountable to small businesses facing bureaucratic deadlock?
Lucy Powell
This sounds like a particularly frustrating situation for my hon. Friend’s constituents. If she gives me the full details of the case, I will make sure that HMRC deals with it quickly.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My constituents Peter from Liverton Mines and Morgan from Brotton are very keen to buy electric vehicles, but they are unable to because they do not have driveways on which to charge them. Will the Government take it upon themselves to make it easier for people to buy electric vehicles, and find solutions to pavement charging?
Lucy Powell
I am aware that that was my hon. Friend’s 132nd question to this House since he was elected in July, which is double the number his predecessor asked in his first year, so I congratulate him on that. He raises the very important issue of electric vehicles and the need for us to get access to them.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
This week, I was delighted to welcome pupils from Doon Academy in Dalmellington to Parliament. They were able to make the trip due to the community benefit from local windfarms. A few weeks ago, I paid a visit to the school to learn about its “kind to mind” group. Students have created a safe place for students in the school to connect and talk about how they feel. Would the Leader of the House make time for a debate on what action can be taken to support mental health in our communities, particularly for our young people?
Lucy Powell
We are committed to providing mental health support, especially for our young people. We have an ambitious programme to do just that, and I am sure that Health Ministers will keep us updated.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, this week has been a great week for rugby league with Billy Boston being knighted, but you will be astonished to find out that only one former boxer has ever been knighted—Sir Henry Cooper. Does the Leader of the House agree that more grassroots, working-class sports stars should be knighted, and that maybe Kevin Sinfield and Lennox Lewis would be a good start?
Lucy Powell
I am sure the authorities have heard what my hon. Friend says. He does a really good job of championing working-class sports, particularly boxing and rugby league, and I know that that they matter greatly to his constituents.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
New College Lanarkshire was recently recognised as further education institution of the year at The Herald education awards. Deputy principal Ann Baxter and student Chloe Sandilands were also recognised, winning the lifetime achievement and outstanding contribution categories. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all at the college on its 160th anniversary? Does she agree that the Scottish Government must end their unfair cuts to the college sector to allow people access to the skills that they need?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating New College Lanarkshire on all its achievements, and on its 160th anniversary. He is absolutely right. This UK Government have boosted funding to further education. Now that the Scottish Government have the Barnett consequentials for that, they really have no excuse.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The volunteers of the Southwick Village Green Preservation Society have for six years worked with pride and love to improve the green in my constituency. Thanks to their efforts, it not only looks beautiful but celebrates the proud history of Southwick, including the contribution of Suddickers to shipbuilding, and in world wars. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them for what they do, and consider a debate on the contribution that such voluntary groups make?
Lucy Powell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved in improving the Southwick village green, and thank all volunteers in all our constituencies for what they do.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I had an extremely harrowing meeting with a mum in my constituency. Her 12-year-old son had been groomed by an artificial intelligence chatbot through character.ai. It is utterly unacceptable that young people are exposed to the risks and harms of AI in this way. The Online Safety Act 2023 is a step in the right direction, but does the Leader of the House agree that we must do more? Will she make further space to debate this vital issue in this House?
Lucy Powell
I was really sorry to hear of this horrific case of a young person in her constituency being groomed by an AI bot. It highlights further the challenges we face. My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government brought in the Online Safety Act. We need to see how that unfolds, but if we need to strengthen it, we will.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The minor injuries unit at Cannock Chase hospital temporarily closed more than five years ago. In August, the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board announced proposals to permanently close our MIU, but it has been radio silence since October. My constituents are having to use unreliable bus services to travel elsewhere, or call an ambulance, which is the opposite of what the ICB wants to achieve. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the importance of urgent care, particularly in more deprived communities, like Cannock Chase?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the access that his constituents need to urgent and emergency care in his constituency. I am sorry to hear of the closure of the minor injuries unit. The Minister for Secondary Care will be here shortly for a statement. He might want to raise that with her then.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in praising Labour-led Rugby borough council and all involved in organising the forthcoming Love Rugby festival, which will take place from 20 June to 6 July in our town centre? It brings together Rugby’s diverse communities and celebrates our amazing people, open spaces, volunteers and venues. Town centre businesses are throwing open their doors, as is the Rugby Art Gallery and Museum. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on running, I am glad that the festival includes a “couch to 5k” run, which I will be joining. I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, and perhaps the Leader of the House, might make the 55-minute train journey up to Rugby to join me, and take part in celebrating pride and place in Rugby?
Lucy Powell
I always prefer invitations that involve eating things, rather than running, but I will consider it. We have heard a lot about rugby today, but my hon. Friend raises a different kind of Rugby. I am sure that many people will be visiting his constituency.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I was contacted this week by a constituent whose son needs to see an occupational therapist. Her son is one year old, but because he does not yet have child disability living allowance, he cannot be given a referral. The Department for Work and Pensions says that the current wait for a child disability allowance application to be processed is 25 weeks. That is just not acceptable. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to this House on the steps that the Department is taking to clear the backlog it inherited?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of the delays in applications for disability living allowance, particularly for children, which are both unprecedented and unacceptable. The Government are taking action to bring them down, but I will ensure that the case he mentions gets thought.
Gibraltar
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
My thoughts, and I am sure those of the entire House, are with those who have been affected by the tragic plane crash in India this morning. We know that British nationals were on board. I can confirm, Mr Speaker, that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working urgently with local authorities to support British nationals and their families, and has stood up a crisis team in both Delhi and London.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on Gibraltar. Yesterday, the United Kingdom reached a political agreement with the European Union on the last major unresolved issue from our decision to leave the EU, providing much-needed certainty for people and businesses in Gibraltar. The deal removes another obstacle to closer ties with our EU friends and, crucially, protects British sovereignty over the Rock.
The need for this deal is well understood. As Members across the House have often highlighted, the current situation is not sustainable. Every single day, approximately 15,000 people—half of Gibraltar’s workforce—cross the land border with Spain to do their jobs, and to buy goods and services. Without a solution, the EU’s incoming system of entry and exit controls would have introduced a hard border, at which every individual’s passport would be checked, and all British goods heading for Gibraltar’s supermarket shelves would be subject to time-consuming customs checks. That would cause chaos and backlogs, endanger the livelihoods of British citizens in Gibraltar, wreck the territory’s economy and possibly cost it hundreds of millions of pounds a year, and place pressure, ultimately, on the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.
All my predecessors since the referendum have had to wrestle with the looming threat to Gibraltar’s economy and way of life. These issues were, regrettably, left out of the EU exit negotiations. The previous Government began further talks to address them in 2021, when the former right hon. Member for Esher and Walton was Foreign Secretary. The issues were taken forward by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton came close to reaching an agreement. I pay tribute to their efforts, and to them for briefing me on Privy Council terms when I was in opposition.
It fell to this Government, when we came into office last year, to get a deal over the line, and it was imperative that we did. Gibraltar is part of the British family. Its people are British citizens. Its military facilities are of the utmost importance to Britain’s security, protecting important global trade routes in volatile geopolitical times. Britain is safer thanks to the work of our armed forces on the Rock. Since coming into office, therefore, we have made it a priority to negotiate a lasting solution with the European Commission and Spain.
I acknowledge the role of the Minister for Europe, North America and the Overseas Territories, who, in opposition and government, has been a relentless advocate for the people of Gibraltar, and has been integral to finding a mutually beneficial way forward. I also thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the dedicated team of Foreign Office diplomats for all their efforts, led by Lindsay Appleby in Brussels and Robbie Bulloch in London; their negotiating skill and deft diplomacy have been in the finest tradition of our diplomatic service.
British Ministers and officials have worked hand in glove with the Government of Gibraltar to conclude these tricky negotiations. Chief Minister Fabian Picardo has been at the table at every single stage of the process. Yesterday, he welcomed me to Gibraltar before we travelled together to Brussels to conclude the talks—as he said, as “a united British family”.
This Government would never agree to any solution that did not have the full support of the Government of Gibraltar—nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. The Chief Minister has said that what we have agreed is
“something remarkable…Something bold. Something forward-looking and hopeful.”
I pay tribute to all those whose tireless efforts have helped to get us here. We have protected Gibraltar’s sovereignty, economy and way of life for the long term. Since 2021, this and previous Governments have been involved in 19 formal rounds of talks and countless technical discussions, sherpa meetings and ministerial calls—it was a massive collective effort—to ensure that Gibraltar could continue to prosper.
We have agreed a unique and practical solution to the problem facing Gibraltar, the only British overseas territory that shares a border with the EU’s visa-free Schengen area. Its people’s livelihoods depend on a fluid border. Our solution will deliver jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar, but for the entire region. British sovereignty over the whole of Gibraltar, including British Gibraltar territorial waters, remains sacrosanct and iron-clad. On starting talks, I immediately secured an agreement to add a clause explicitly protecting our sovereignty, and the same goes for British Forces Gibraltar, which will continue to operate without interference or interruption, exactly as it does today.
Traffic at the border between Gibraltar and Spain will be able to flow, without checks on the people crossing. Residents of Gibraltar and of nearby Spanish communities will be able to go about their daily life, as they have done. For those arriving by air at Gibraltar’s airport, there will be dual border control checks—a model similar to the one whereby French police operate in London’s St Pancras station. Ignore the fake news: Gibraltar will not be joining Schengen. That was never on the table. Immigration, policing and justice in Gibraltar will remain the responsibility of Gibraltar’s authorities.
As for products entering Gibraltar across its land border, there will be a unique goods and customs model, avoiding the need for onerous checks at the border. With this pragmatic solution, flights will be able to operate from Gibraltar airport across Europe, driving growth and jobs for the people of Gibraltar.
This Government are showing that a pragmatic, positive relationship with the European Union pays off for the British public. Just as at the UK-EU summit last month, we are solving the problems left by the previous Government and their thin Brexit deal, and are making working people across the British family safer and better off. We can now also strengthen our co-operation with Spain, our NATO ally, a place that British people know so well.
I am grateful to my counterparts in Spain and the EU for completing these negotiations in good faith, in the spirit of win-win solutions for all parties involved. This agreement paves the way for finalisation of the UK-EU treaty text on Gibraltar. All parties have committed to completing this as quickly as possible. I can reassure hon. Members that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it in the usual way. I hope that Members from all parts of the House take this matter with the seriousness that it deserves and back the solution that Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and I have come to, guaranteeing Gibraltar’s sovereignty, economy and way of life.
This is what competent government looks like: fixing problems, not creating them; standing up for our overseas territories, not leaving them exposed; and protecting Britain’s interests abroad, to ensure security and growth at home. With this agreement, Gibraltar will have easier access to the European economy. Its businesses can plan for the long-term once again, and its citizens can feel reassured about their future. Britain’s commitment to Gibraltar remains as solid as the Rock itself. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The thoughts of the whole House will be with those affected by the plane crash in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and the emergency services at the scene. I thank the Foreign Secretary for assuring us about the assistance that will be given to the families affected. As we know, British nationals are involved.
On the statement, I pay tribute to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, and his team for the constructive way they have approached this issue. They worked constructively with Ministers in the previous Conservative Government to set out the negotiating position and red lines, the UK having recognised the choices that Gibraltar made in its interests.
The Chief Minister stated in a letter to the former European Scrutiny Committee that
“the UK and Gibraltar have never worked more closely together in delivering the outcome that the People of Gibraltar want”.
As my noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton said when he gave evidence to the Committee last year:
“Fabian Picardo and I are joined at the hip: we will not agree anything that we are not both comfortable with.”
The Foreign Secretary has acknowledged his predecessor’s work and taken time to reflect on it and secure this outcome. Will he also acknowledge that this negotiating process has been frustrated by Spain, which, as we know, blocked these issues from being resolved through the Brexit negotiations?
His Majesty’s Opposition will judge the deal agreed on whether it meets the aims and objectives that we outlined when in government with Gibraltar and once we see the full details. Our principles have been that nothing compromises or infringes on the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of Gibraltar, which is to remain British. We believe that we must able to operate our base as we have done to safeguard our defence and interest, and that the deal must be backed by the Government of Gibraltar and Gibraltar’s people to support their interests. It must also address the concerns about the actions of Spain to frustrate and prevent the free flow of goods.
I heard what the Foreign Secretary said in his statement and in the joint statement from the Government of Gibraltar, the UK Government and the EU Commission. I have the following questions. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm when the House will get to see the full details of the deal and the treaty? In a letter to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee, the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), commented on the benefits to scrutiny of sharing the initial treaty text in advance of its being laid formally. Given the importance of the issue, will the Foreign Secretary make a draft available to the House before signing, and will he commit to make parliamentary time available to debate the treaty?
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the red lines that the last Government set with the Government of Gibraltar have been met or whether, during the negotiations and since he took office last year, there has been any divergence from them? Can he give assurances that under this deal we will see a stop to the games that have been played by the Spanish that disrupt the border and the freedoms that Gibraltarians should enjoy? They cause disruption in the EU, so has he received commitments from Spain and the EU that this will never happen again? With in excess of 15,000 people crossing the border every day, it is vital for economic interests that a fluid border, which Gibraltar wants, is in place. That is why when we were in government we respected the choice of Gibraltar to work to achieve this.
No mention is made of the military base in the joint statement, but the Foreign Secretary has referenced it. Can he confirm that nothing will be agreed that infringes on our ability to operate the base, and will members of our armed forces be able to access Gibraltar without needing Schengen checks? On the juxtaposed border controls, can he give more details about their practical operation and explain to the House how they will work? Can Spanish officers stop a British citizen from coming to stay in Gibraltar? Will British citizens’ time staying in Gibraltar count against the 90-day Schengen limit?
Finally, the joint statement issued lists areas that the agreement will include, covering state aid, taxation, the environment, transport, the rights of frontier workers, social security co-operation and financial mechanisms on training and employment. However, there is a lack of detail. When will the details come forward, and when will we be able to scrutinise them? Does this put Gibraltar in a customs union with the EU? What does this mean for VAT? Will there be any provisions that will require Gibraltar or the United Kingdom to pass legislation, including to enact any EU law? Conservatives will always defend British sovereignty and the rights of Gibraltar, and we will continue to scrutinise the details of this deal so that nothing undermines this.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks. She is absolutely right to pay tribute to Fabian Picardo, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has been fantastic to work with throughout this. As I said to him, nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. He has been in the room every time that talks have been conducted. I am grateful to previous Foreign Secretaries for the briefing that they gave me in office.
May I be clear that the military base will continue to operate as it does today? There will be zero change. It is vital for UK national security, and it is protected by this agreement. That was a red line for us throughout the negotiations.
The right hon. Lady asks whether the arrangement changed with the change of government. On the red lines that were set out by the Gibraltar Government, the answer is no. The only thing that changed was that I insisted that there was a sovereignty clause, which she will see when the treaty is published.
The right hon. Lady asks how quickly we will be able to share the treaty. We hope to do so as quickly as possible. She will recognise that there is a lot of technical detail. Work is ongoing with lawyers to draft the treaty, and between the European Union and Spain to ensure that the language in it is aligned, but we will get to that point as quickly as we can.
The right hon. Lady asks about parliamentary scrutiny. I assure her that we will follow the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process, as is right. Parliament will be able fully to scrutinise the treaty, and to debate the terms of the treaty if it wishes, as she would expect.
The right hon. Lady asks about Schengen. As I said in the statement, this was never on the table. I give her the assurance that immigration, policing and justice in Gibraltar will remain the responsibility of the Gibraltar authorities.
The right hon. Lady asks about VAT. I assure her that Gibraltar will not be applying VAT and will maintain its fiscal sovereignty.
The right hon. Lady asks about the 90-day rule. Because there will, in effect, now not be checks at the land border, it is right that Gibraltarians can come and stay as long as they want. But for those who are travelling into Gibraltar from Spain, or those who are arriving in Gibraltar at the airport, I can confirm that the 90-day rule will apply across both Gibraltar and Spain.
I recognise that these questions touch on the issues that dominated this House following the decision to leave the European Union, which was, of course, a decision that divided the nation. But this moment, this deal and this arrangement, for which Gibraltar was in the room, represent a conclusion to that period. I am very grateful for the tone that the Official Opposition have taken.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have to admit that when Brexit happened, I thought that the problem of Gibraltar would be so difficult that I really did not see how we would ever get over it. It is a tribute to the flair, the flexibility and the fraternity on display on all four sides of the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary has been able to come to this place to announce such a great success, and I congratulate him and his team wholeheartedly.
The Foreign Secretary talks about our scrutinising this matter in the usual way under the CRaG process. I have to say that I think the CRaG process is rubbish, and I ask him to look again at, in essence, our having the right, as opposed to being given it by largesse, to debate and vote on a treaty. The requirement is that the Government lay before Parliament a treaty, which this House may resolve not to ratify during a 21-day delay. How that is done, I frankly do not know, because it has never been done, but it could, in theory, result in a delay of 21 sitting days. In many cases, it would be not so much ping-pong as hoofing the ball up the pitch again and again. The CRaG process is obscure and out of date. It is basically the Ponsonby rule, and it is unfit for the 21st century and unfit for this place. I ask the Foreign Secretary to look at it again.
Mr Lammy
I will begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming a dame and on her trip to Buckingham Palace yesterday. I hear what she says about the CRaG process. I recognise the importance of that to the House, so through the usual channels, we will do everything that we can to ensure that there is the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and that the House can remain united and confident that Gibraltar remains sovereign, that the base is secure and that our relationship with both Spain and the EU is appropriately intact.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Our thoughts also go out to all those families involved in the tragic air crash in India today.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. Our hope is that this new agreement will work to the genuine benefit of Gibraltarians, leaving no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty of the territory and our commitment to the self-determination of Gibraltarians.
There are a number of vital principles at stake. To ensure that the deal effectively secures the future of the Gibraltarian economy, it is vital that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the agreement and vote on it. Will the Minister therefore commit to bringing the deal before the House for a review and outline when MPs can expect to vote on it? It is also vital that the Government provide further clarity on the timeline for implementing the deal. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a provisional date has been agreed for its implementation and whether that timeline provides enough of an opportunity for parliamentarians to provide adequate scrutiny? Another principle is that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians. Will the Minister provide further details on what steps have been taken to consult them, including representatives of business, to ensure that their interests have been front and centre in the negotiations?
The Spanish Government have been willing in the past to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms will exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of future possible unilateral action, thus giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Finally, will the Minister confirm the lifespan of the deal and whether it will include an opt-out clause, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is right that the people of Gibraltar have been in limbo since the Brexit decision, which is why it was important that, in coming into office and inheriting this from the last Government, we put every effort into it. Let me again pay tribute to the Minister for Europe who rolled up his sleeves and was a sherpa at a lot of those meetings, particularly over the last year.
The hon. Lady asked about business. I assure her that I was with representatives from the business sector in Gibraltar yesterday morning discussing what a deal would mean for them if it were reached later in the afternoon. There was one word that they kept coming back to: certainty. They wanted certainty, and they wanted the opportunity of a more frictionless border arrangement with Spain and the opportunity to sell into the Spanish market unhindered. That is what they said and that is what we particularly took on board.
The hon. Lady rightly asked about any ability to thwart the deal that might exist in parts of the Spanish parliamentary system. May I remind her that the deal, appropriately, is between the United Kingdom and the European Union, that we have always been a country that meets our treaty obligations seriously and that whatever one’s views about the European Union, it is also an organisation that meets its obligations seriously? When we sign up to a treaty, that is what we are doing. As with the trade and co-operation agreement, there is a review mechanism that would allow the appropriate review; indeed, the UK-EU summit that we had a few weeks ago was an appropriate review. However, we met our obligations under the TCA in opposition, standing up for the agreement that had been struck by the last Government, and we would expect the same in this instance.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and Chief Minister Fabian Picardo on getting this landmark agreement over the line? The agreement further cements Gibraltar’s place as an integral part of the British family. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House what further measures he is taking to strengthen relationships with the overseas territories?
Mr Lammy
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the overseas territories more generally. We had a good meeting of the heads of the overseas territories at the end of last year, at which I and the Prime Minister were in attendance. We have undertaken to conduct a review of our relationships to strengthen those further, and the Minister for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories is taking that forward as we speak.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman will know—and he will not take this personally —that for the most part I think his Government’s ability to negotiate is appalling. The only reason I have any confidence that this might be a good deal is that the Government of Gibraltar were heavily involved. At some point in the future, this House—me included—will see the detail of this agreement, and I will know what red lines I stuck to when I was negotiating. To save time and for the education of the House, will he, without going into details, let us know: did the European position, including the Spanish position, move closer to ours or did we move closer to theirs to get this deal over the line?
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we strengthened the deal, and we did that by putting in a sovereignty clause to ensure that there was no question about the sovereignty of Gibraltar and its unique relationship as part of the family of the United Kingdom. We were able to reach a deal yesterday that the European Union and the UK had negotiated. We ensured that Fabian Picardo was in the room at every meeting and the European Union ensured that Spain was in the room at every meeting. The right hon. Gentleman will know that Gibraltar has been a block on our bilateral relationship with Spain. This is an opportunity for us to work with Spain and to deepen that relationship, as we have been able to do with so many other countries across Europe.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I used to live in Andalusia, close to the Gibraltar border, so this issue is very close to my heart and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the deal. The people of Spain, Gibraltar and Britain are very close, we have very deep links and, as they say in Spain, “Hacemos buenas migas.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is not only a great deal for the economy of Gibraltar, but a chance to deepen those relationships and continue those friendships that have gone on for so many years?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because her question gives me the opportunity to remind people about the many Spanish families living across the border who make their way into Gibraltar for work and to see loved ones, and who were subjected to checks. Now, those families will not have those checks and it will be much more seamless to go between both sides. This is a win-win for them as much as it is for those in Gibraltar. I am grateful to her for bringing to mind the people, and not just the businesses, who will benefit.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is encouraging that the Gibraltarians are receiving more consideration than the exiled Chagossians did. When the Foreign Secretary says that a sovereignty clause was inserted, does that mean that Spain absolutely and explicitly recognises the sovereign relationship between Britain and Gibraltar? If so, what has the reaction been of those elements that he referred to in Spanish politics that do not accept that relationship?
Mr Lammy
Absolutely, Spain does recognise the sovereignty of Gibraltar and its relationship with the United Kingdom in the agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman will see that detail in the treaty. He will know that the subject of dispute over many, many years—long before many of us were in this House—is over the isthmus. Much of the territory that some would describe as neutral—others have different descriptions—exists between Gibraltar and Spain. Overwhelmingly, there has been support for reaching this moment on both sides. I cannot comment on the extremities of politics in Spain, but I am sure that these days that can be looked up on social media.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. I know she is disappointed not to be able to join us today and would want to be here to welcome today’s UK-Gibraltar-Spain-EU agreement. It protects Gibraltar’s sovereignty, secures the British naval base and reduces border checks from 10 million to 250,000 a year, as well as strengthening the economy through new European flight access. That is an incredibly strong outcome. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm how we will ensure its smooth and effective implementation on the ground?
Mr Lammy
I, too, pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for championing the people of Gibraltar and their issues and for ensuring that, in coming into Government, we made sure that there could not be an agreement that Gibraltar’s representatives were not content with. I should update the House that yesterday I also met the Opposition in Gibraltar, so they were fully informed of what I hoped would become a good outcome today. We will work at pace on the treaty. I cannot give my hon. Friend a timeline because of the technical legal detail that that will involve, but I will seek to update the House in the appropriate way if there are delays.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the tone of his statement and the tributes he paid to not only his predecessors, but the officials and diplomats who have been involved in the negotiations for many years. I do not think I heard an answer to the question asked by the shadow Foreign Secretary, which was: can a British citizen flying from the UK to Gibraltar now be stopped by a Spanish official as they land? On the sovereignty clause, will he clarify whether it means that Spain has abandoned its claim altogether, or does it plan to follow the same route that Mauritius did with Diego Garcia?
Mr Lammy
On the first point, we have stuck to the political framework that was negotiated and agreed back in 2020 by the then Foreign Secretary, the former Member for Esher and Walton. I have a photograph from the agreement that was struck, of where we would be locating effectively a joint facility in the airport. There will be a second line queue, as there is in St Pancras, and there will be Spanish border guards and police situated in that second line. Of course, if there was an alert at that point—not on its own, but at that point—there would be a hand-back facility with the Gibraltar police, so they will be working alongside that Spanish team. If there was an alert, the individual would have the right to legal advice. They would be able to either return to their country of origin—let’s say the UK—or voluntarily go over to Spain to face questions. The key thing is that it is joint and alongside the work and efforts of the Gibraltar police and the Gibraltar customs and border guards.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this political agreement and congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team on achieving it. I recently met Chief Minister Picardo, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, to welcome the progress that Gibraltar has made on anti-money laundering, including through publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is the intent in the future EU-UK agreement that there will be a section on anti-money laundering? Does he agree that it sends a message to other overseas territories that tackling economic crime can be a strength in terms of business confidence and investment, and not something to be feared?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work in this area. He will recognise that Gibraltar, as an overseas territory, is at the strong end of tackling issues of illicit finance and is paving the way. There is more work to do on this issue and particularly on beneficial ownership. I intend to take this forward, working alongside our new envoy in this area, Baroness Hodge, and culminating, I hope, in an event in London next year.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Gibraltar is British and its citizens are British by choice. I was proud to represent Gibraltar for 10 years when I served in the European Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that once the full text is available, he will allow time for both this House and the Gibraltar Parliament to scrutinise the deal before it is ratified?
Mr Lammy
I do not want to speak for the Chief Minister, but I know that he was expecting for there to be the appropriate scrutiny of the Bill in the Gibraltar parliamentary system. Of course, as we would expect, this has garnered a lot of attention in Gibraltar. I have given my undertaking to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I recognise that this is an important last aspect of our decision to leave the European Union and that it needs the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he confirm that it is his expectation that this deal will provide new opportunities for growth in trade and for businesses in Gibraltar?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm that. There was palpable excitement, when speaking to businesses in Gibraltar yesterday morning, at the opportunities that would arise. Of course, for small and medium-sized businesses, there will be some change. It is important, and we have discussed this with the Chief Minister, that we can support those businesses on trade, on skills in particular and on the opportunities that exist on both sides of the border.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I want to probe the question of whether Spanish border officials have an effective veto on the entry of a British citizen from the United Kingdom landing on British sovereign territory in Gibraltar. I just want absolute clarity for everybody in this House: do Spanish officials have a veto or not? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary comment on the dispute resolution mechanism and whether there is a regular review clause?
Mr Lammy
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has flown into Gibraltar airport, as I have, but if he flew into Gibraltar and there was an alert—I am not sure why there might be an alert in the Schengen system— I reassure him that as he is stopped by the Spanish border guards operating on behalf of the European Union, he would be handed back to the Gibraltese, where he might feel more comfortable. He would be able to access his rights and the legal system that he certainly feels comfortable with, which is ours. He would be able to return to the United Kingdom, where no doubt the Spanish would seek to extradite him and many in this House would be rather pleased.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to the sovereignty clause, the question of sovereignty can only really be answered once we have the full detail of the treaty. That scrutiny is made poorer by the Government’s decision when they took office to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee, which did detailed work on this subject in the last Parliament. If I may tease out a further response, given the unique nature of Gibraltar airport, where the runway and aerodrome are owned by the Ministry of Defence and operated by the Royal Air Force, will a member of the British armed forces landing in Gibraltar have to prove their British identity to anyone in order to go to work?
Mr Lammy
No, absolutely not. We have secured that arrangement. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that Spain is a NATO ally, and it understood the importance of that requirement. As it has been raised, let me just say that, yes, there is a dispute resolution mechanism and a termination clause, as the House would appropriately expect.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
This welcome agreement has been a long time coming. Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar on official delegations are aware of how loyal Gibraltarians are to Britain and the British Crown. On the talk of sovereignty, I think we have established that, other than the St Pancras-style arrangement, the Spanish police will have no authority. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that no other Spanish authority—customs officials, for example—will have any authority on the Rock?
Mr Lammy
Yesterday I met Joe Bossano, who, at 85, is a long-standing Member of the Gibraltar Parliament. He shared his reflections on Gibraltar and its attachment to the UK, on the war and being evacuated to the UK, and on where there have been disagreements with the UK, when the UK has not understood that Gibraltar is part of the family. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks: yes is the answer.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is clearly in the best interests of Spain and Gibraltar for there to be a free flow of individuals backwards and forwards across the border. For UK citizens who fly into Spain or Gibraltar and hire a car to cross the border into Gibraltar or Spain, what checks will there be at the border? Clarity on that point would help.
Mr Lammy
The clarity is that there will no longer be any checks. If they fly into Spain, they are flying into the Schengen area. If they fly into Málaga, they are free to drive to Gibraltar without checks—they would already have had those checks. The same applies in the other direction.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, but I must ask a question given the similarities between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. The sovereignty issues faced by Northern Ireland in terms of European overreach on borders mean that Northern Irish people will feel anxiety about this agreement. Will the Secretary of State outline what consideration has been given to the views of Gibraltarians, and what consultation was held regarding the policy of a foreign nation on their soil?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that our position of “nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar” gave those guarantees, and no meetings were held—certainly not under this Government or, I am quite sure, under the previous Government either—without the Chief Minister in the room, so that they were happy. We would not have had a deal were they not happy; there would not have been a deal were the Chief Minister not able to stand up and say, “I am happy with this deal.” That was the guarantee we gave. Of course we reflected on the issues that arose in relation to Northern Ireland.
Spending Review: Health and Social Care
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the outcome of the spending review for the Department of Health and Social Care.
This Government were elected on a manifesto to fix our broken NHS and make it fit for the future. Our job is twofold: first, to get the NHS back on its feet and treating patients on time again; and secondly, to reform the service for the long-term so that it is fit for the future. That is why, in her autumn Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took the necessary decisions to give health and social care a record uplift in day-to-day spending at the conclusion of the first phase of the spending review. The Department for Health and Social Care received a cash injection of £26 billion covering day-to-day spending and capital investment in 2025-26, compared with the 2023-24 out-turn.
All Opposition parties have rejected that investment and those changes to repair the damage done to our NHS and move it forward. They have rejected two above-inflation pay increases for our NHS staff, the recruitment of 1,700 more GPs and the agreement of a GP contract for the first time since the pandemic, the biggest investment for hospices in a generation, the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s, a boost for older and disabled people through the disabled facilities grant, and the biggest real-terms increase to the public health grant in nearly a decade.
We have also given pharmacies the biggest funding uplift in years, ensured that women across the country can access the morning after pill free of charge, frozen prescription charges for the first time in three years, enabled an extra 3.5 million appointments for operations, consultations, diagnostic tests and treatments—reaching and surpassing our manifesto pledge seven months early. I can update the House on waiting lists, which, as of this morning, have fallen by over 30,000 compared with last month, amid a reduction of 232,000 since this Government took office.
I could go on, but I have only 10 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not like to try your patience, so I will make this point briefly. To govern is to choose, and anyone who opposed the decisions that the Chancellor took in her Budget must tell us what they would have subtracted from that list. We cannot spend money if we do not raise it.
As the Minister of State for Secondary Care, I regularly hear appalling anecdotes from colleagues across the House whose local hospitals, GP surgeries and community services are crumbling, with rusty equipment, leaky pipes and buckets catching rainwater. Phase 1 of the spending review has allowed us to arrest 14 years of shocking neglect and undercapitalisation in the NHS, with a record capital investment of £13.6 billion in 2025-26. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like it, but I will go on. That money has gone towards repairing our crumbling hospitals, supporting over 1,000 GP surgeries to modernise their buildings, and installing state-of-the-art scanners across the NHS estate, including the latest linear accelerator machines. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, investment must come with reform. This year we have unveiled our plan for change, our elective reform plan, our urgent and emergency care plan and a crackdown on agency spend in order to reinvest £1 billion into the frontline.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the conclusion of phase 2 of the spending review, setting budgets that will enable us to make firm plans to deliver on the people’s priorities in the coming years, while going further and faster on reform. Our settlement increases day-to-day spending on health, bringing the budget for my Department and our NHS up to £232 billion by 2028-2029. That means £29 billion more day-to-day funding for the NHS in England, in real terms, than in 2023-24. We have also secured the largest-ever health capital budget, with a £2.3 billion real-terms increase in capital spending by 2029-30, compared with 2023-24, representing a more than 20% real-terms increase by the end of the spending review period.
Let me hammer this point home: investment must be matched by reform. This will be a critical year for the NHS as we achieve better value for taxpayers, who must see their money being spent well and delivering results. We would rather take those difficult decisions now, to save our NHS so that it is there for future generations. NHS England is a top-down organisation—the biggest quango in the world—with a less efficient system than the previous Government inherited in 2010 and twice the headcount at the centre. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced in March that we will bring together NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to form a new joint centre. That will put an end to duplication and enable substantial efficiency savings, while bringing the management of our NHS back under democratic control. We will also unlock £17 billion of savings over the spending review period through 2% annual productivity growth in the NHS—money that will be either reinvested in the frontline or used to support radical transformation to make the health system more agile and efficient.
Our elective reform plan set out how we will ensure that by the end of this Parliament 92% of patients will not have to wait more than 18 weeks for elective care. This settlement will drive us further towards that goal, with over £6 billion of additional capital investment over five years across new diagnostic, elective and emergency and urgent care capacity, which could deliver more than 4 million additional tests and procedures.
We will build on the record capital investment from phase 1 to repair the NHS estate. That means continuing the delivery of 25 new hospitals; investing £30 billion in maintenance and repairs, with £5 billion of it to address the most critical building repairs; and reducing by half the number of hospitals containing RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—over this Parliament.
This spending review provides for an increase of over £4 billion for adult social care in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26, including an increase in the NHS contribution via the better care fund. Local authorities with responsibility for adult social care will also benefit from wider reforms to better align funding with need, multi-year settlements and simplification of the funding landscape that enables them to plan more effectively. Last but not least, we have taken steps to simplify targets and better monitor delivery, and we will continue to work with local systems to improve financial and operational performance, to get the most from every penny.
A key part of our 10-year plan is driving progress on the three shifts: from analogue to digital, hospital to community and treatment to prevention. On digital, we will invest up to £10 billion in technology and transformation, to start making the NHS app a digital front door and deliver a single patient record. We will work in partnership with the Wellcome Trust to launch the world’s first health data research service, backed by £600 million, to accelerate the discovery of lifesaving drugs.
On primary and community care, we will invest in training thousands more GPs, helping to bring back the family doctor through millions of extra appointments a year; in 700,000 additional dentist appointments annually; in at least 8,500 extra mental health staff by the end of this Parliament; and in mental health support teams for every school within five years. Finally, on prevention, our world-leading immunisation programmes will be supported by £2 billion, and we will invest £80 million in tobacco cessation programmes and our Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
I want to end by thanking the Chancellor for her unwavering commitment to getting our NHS back on its feet. Fixing broken Britain will not be easy, but nothing that is worth doing ever is. Today I have set out how every penny from the public purse will be matched by reform, to make our NHS fit for the future. We remember we were elected on a manifesto to end sticking-plaster politics and do the hard yards of fixing our country, and we will never betray that promise to the British people. The public have a right to know how public money will be spent, and this is something we take extremely seriously. They can put their trust in this Government, because we have fixed the NHS before, and with the help of this Chancellor, we will fix it again. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Yesterday, yet again, we saw the Chancellor do what the Labour party always does: default to high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes, leaving the public finances vulnerable. The Minister has spoken of additional funding for the NHS. To use the same comparison as the NHS England chief executive, the NHS budget will now be roughly the equivalent of the entire GDP of Portugal, yet we are still none the wiser as to how the Government actually intend to use most of the money—there is no real detail and no real plan. Just last September, the Prime Minister pledged that there would be no more money without reform. Despite the Minister’s words, that is exactly what the Government have done. There is still no plan for reform, and the Secretary of State is unwilling to set out the bold reforms that are needed.
Despite 14 years in opposition and nearly one year in government, the Labour party has failed to come up with a plan for the NHS, with the exception of the abolition of NHS England, which will not happen for years and appears to be delayed and in chaos. Ministers respond to every written parliamentary question about it by saying they cannot set out the savings, how the people will change or how the structure will change at this stage—yet again, there is still no plan. We have been very clear that where the Government are wrong, we will oppose it, but where they get something right, we will work constructively with them. That includes reform, but there is still no reform for us even to consider supporting.
Can the Minister tell us where the £29 billion she set out will be spent? The chief executive of the NHS Confederation said yesterday that increases in NHS staff pay will
“account for a large proportion”
of the funding increase. The former NHS chief financial officer echoed that view at the Health and Social Care Committee in January, saying that pretty much all the last tranche of additional spending was absorbed by pay rises, national insurance and inflation. Can the Minister confirm how much the pay offers from the independent pay review bodies, alongside increased national insurance, will cost, how much of this funding will have to go to cover that and how much will actually make it to the frontline to improve patient services?
The Minister touched on the aim of meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament. Of course, we wish the Government well in achieving that and hope they succeed, but just yesterday The Times reported that internal departmental modelling showed they are not on track and could only come close to meeting the target with “implausible” and “over-optimistic” assumptions. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies agreed. Can the Minister set out how the Government will meet that target? Again, where is the plan? We need a plan, not empty rhetoric.
It is clear that the NHS needs reforms, not just more funding, so when will the 10-year plan finally be published? Will it be before the one-year anniversary of the Labour party being in government? Will it be like their elective reform plan: simply a reheat of the plan that Sajid Javid brought forward in 2022, with nothing new? The Secretary of State needs to be more ambitious—words that I suspect will never be echoed by the Prime Minister or his team in No. 10.
The capital budget remains broadly flat in real terms from this year onwards. The Minister has said she wishes to continue with the new hospitals programme and invest in technology to boost productivity, but it is unclear how that can be achieved with this settlement. These are not my warnings but those of respected independent think-tanks, including the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund. The Chancellor’s plan is clear—indeed, not one Treasury Minister has ruled it out: more tax rises are coming.
Finally, and importantly, we have seen social care largely neglected again by this Government. There were just two sentences about it in a four-page statement. Social care deserves better. The Minister knows very well that we cannot improve the NHS without social care working well. Earlier today I met with social care providers. They want to see reform, yet the Government have apparently abandoned cross-party talks on social care reform for an independent commission led by the very able Baroness Casey, who is still doing her Home Office work on grooming gangs and is yet to be full time on this commission, which has a deeply unambitious finishing time of 2028. When will Baroness Casey be full time on the commission? These providers were clear that they want a seat at the table when better care funds are distributed by the NHS—they want to have their voices heard in decision making on that funding. Will the Minister agree to that?
Finally, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said he has modelled his assumptions on continued trends in local government finance and local government precepts —in other words, a 5% uplift in the precept. However, a large number of counties are now controlled by Reform—whose Members are, as ever, notably absent from the Chamber when we talk about health and social care—who have pledged no tax rises whatsoever in their councils. If they do that, what is the Minister’s plan to make sure social care is funded? As ever, the Government have gone for the headline announcement, but sadly without a plan, without delivery and with no real reform to benefit patients.
Karin Smyth
I am entirely unclear, after that run-through of a number of different issues, whether the Conservatives welcome the extra investment in the NHS or oppose it. We know they oppose the means of funding it, but after that, I have no idea. At some point, they have to make up their mind whether they support that extra investment or not. As I said in my statement, if they do not, what out of the list of the improvements that we have already made would they not do?
As Lord Darzi made clear, under the Conservatives’ watch for 14 years the NHS was broken. Staff were left with out-of-date equipment and unable to do the job they needed to do. We agreed with Lord Darzi’s diagnosis, but Conservative Members have still not said whether they agree with it, or apologised for the state they left the system in. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) has not been able to read the elective reform plan or the urgent emergency care plan that we published recently. It is up to him to read those plans properly and try to understand what is happening.
The right hon. Gentleman has started to do my job for me again, because he cites various think-tanks and people who have said that this cannot be done. Well, I can tell him that we were told, for example, that waiting lists would not drop in April because of seasonality, but we have shown—by keeping a relentless focus on the system, working closely with leaders on the frontline and being clear with officials in the Department—that it can be done. That is what we heard this morning.
We are taking a relentless approach to spending, line by line, throughout the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care. We have rolled up our sleeves and we will not accept putting more and more taxpayers’ money into a leaky system, which is what happened under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. If he had read the patient satisfaction survey, he would know that taxpayers across the country, in all our constituencies, love the NHS. They understand that the Tory party broke it and that it will take long time to fix. They also know that they are paying more taxes for it and getting a worse service, and they expect us to do much better. That is what we have already shown we are doing, and what we will continue to do.
I have outlined the capital that is going into the new hospital programme, which we are committed to, and we have already seen increases in diagnostic capability and surgical hubs throughout our constituencies. We will continue to do more of that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is critical to ensure that social care is supported alongside the NHS. That is why £4 billion is going into social care through our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and as he knows, Louise Casey will publish her interim report next year.
We are clear that fiscal responsibility does not stop at the Treasury or down in Victoria Street with the Department of Health and Social Care. It is important that everybody in the NHS is aware that we are determined to fix the NHS and put it back on a sustained footing. There is record investment; that is our commitment to people, and I know from the people I worked with in the health service over many years that they are determined to make it better. Morale sank to an all-time low under the Conservative party, but we are raising that morale, and we will continue to work with the system to make sure that it is fit for the future.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement about the record funding going into our NHS. We are already seeing the benefit in my constituency, with millions of pounds going into investment in our hospital; that is so desperately needed to get waiting lists down. People were left behind by the Conservative party, and I note that there is still no apology to any of my residents who were left in pain and agony for years and years under their watch—not one word of an apology.
One of the big challenges facing my constituents is accessing an NHS dentist—my hon. Friend knows about that from the time she came to visit me during my campaign. I am campaigning to get new dentists for my constituents in Gloucester, so will she help me to get a meeting with the relevant Minister to ensure that some of this record funding comes to Gloucester to get an NHS dentist for all my constituents?
Karin Smyth
As my hon. Friend said, this is a health area that I know well, and he has been the most amazing campaigner for Gloucester and the health service there since he became the Member of Parliament. He is absolutely right: dentistry is a key worry. It is one of the key areas that the Conservative party neglected for 14 years. That is why it was a manifesto commitment, and why I was able to outline today that meeting the target of 700,000 is front and centre, and part of the plan as we go forward. I know that the Minister for Care, who is responsible for dentistry, is keen to meet many hon. Members, and I will make sure he has heard that request.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
To reiterate: after years of Conservative mismanagement, the NHS is in crisis, with patients left waiting hours for ambulances, women giving birth in unsafe maternity units, and children turning up at A&E with rotting teeth because an NHS dentist cannot be found. That is the Conservative legacy, and they must never be trusted with our health service ever again. So yes, we welcome this funding boost—we really do—and we agree that funding must come with reform, because unless this funding is targeted properly, it will not bring the change that patients urgently need.
When it comes to reform we need to talk about fixing social care, because putting more money into the NHS today will be like pouring money into a leaky bucket. Last year, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care stated that £1.7 billion a year is wasted because patients who are medically fit for discharge cannot leave hospital, simply because no care is available to support them at home. The hospital in Winchester that supports both your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, and mine has up to 160 people waiting to be discharged at any given time, and they would be better cared for with social care packages.
We need urgent action and a higher minimum wage for care workers. We need proper respite and financial support for family carers, and a clear commitment to conclude the social care review, hold cross-party talks, and deliver the real reform that the Minister has been talking about. We also need to tackle the crisis in primary care, because that is where prevention happens and where pressure on hospitals is eased. Will the Minister confirm that the funding boost will deliver the extra 8,000 GPs that are needed to guarantee everyone an appointment within seven days, or within 24 hours for urgent cases? Can she also confirm that the funding will bring dentists back into the NHS, and bring an end to dental deserts? That will not happen without urgent reform of the NHS dental contract, which is outdated, unworkable and driving dentists out of the system.
Finally, we cannot ignore the shocking state of NHS buildings, including our hospital in Winchester. It is an outrage that overcrowded hospitals must close operating theatres due to unsafe ceilings and other health and safety issues. I urge the Minister to spend the money where it matters: on primary care, on social care, and on ensuring that our existing NHS buildings are fit for purpose.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming, on behalf of his party, the commitment that the Chancellor has made and the extra funding that she has identified, but I think his party still opposes the way in which we have raised the funding to do just that. It is good to have your cake and eat it, but we are clear that the funding does come with reform. As I said in my statement, we are committed to improving the front door—primary care—as well as social care and discharge. That is why the NHS contribution, as part of the settlement to the better care fund, increases. He will be aware that we previously revised the better care fund to make it better and more targeted on discharge, which is important.
The urgent and emergency care plan that we published a couple of weeks ago also confirms our recognition that flow through the hospital system is important for patients and staff; we must ensure that we do not face that continued crisis of corridor care over many years. We are committed to the fair pay agreement, and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will make more statements in the coming weeks about how that will work.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry and oral health. Access to NHS dentistry is in crisis, including in my constituency. New analysis by the British Dental Association shows that the share of NHS funding spent on dentistry has more than halved since 2010, from over 3% to just 1.5%. I know how committed the Government are to reforming the dental contract, but the Public Accounts Committee made it clear that reform will work only if it is backed by proper, sustainable funding. Will the Minister ensure that NHS dentistry gets a fair share of the £29 billion announced in the spending review, so that we can end forever the crisis that is affecting millions across the country?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the work she does to support NHS dentistry as part of the all-party group. As I have said, this issue is of huge importance to our constituents, and the shocking state in which the Conservatives left dentistry is there for all to see—particularly the shocking state of children’s oral health. That is why we acted rapidly to introduce the toothbrushing campaign—which, if I remember rightly, was ridiculed by Conservative Members when we discussed it in opposition—and the arrangement with Colgate to ensure that we improve children’s oral health. We are absolutely committed to reform of the contract; the Minister for Care is working hard on that and he will continue to update the House regularly. It is our confirmed commitment, as I have reiterated today, to increase access to dental services.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Our spending on the NHS is now as much as the entire GDP of Portugal. We used to be a country with an NHS attached to it, but we are almost becoming an NHS with a country attached to it. Of course we would welcome this spending if we got the same outcomes that people get in civilised countries, like the Netherlands or Australia, but every time I mention fundamental reform, I am dismissed as wanting to bring in privatisation, so it is hardly worth raising that issue. Australia has an extremely successful pharmaceutical benefits scheme; I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care went out there, and I have talked to Australian doctors about it. Will the Minister at least look at the successful outcomes, including some of the highest life expectancies in the world, that are being delivered in countries like Australia and the Netherlands, to see how we can deliver better outcomes? There is no point spending more money if people’s only right is to join the back of a queue.
Karin Smyth
I was expecting the right hon. Gentleman to talk about the funding model, and I am disappointed that he did not; it is something that he has talked about for many years. I do not know the details of the Australian model, but will ensure that he gets a proper answer. I am always happy, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary the State, to look at models from across the world. We want to learn from the best, and we want to deliver the best in the NHS.
The Conservatives seem to have an obsession with input into the health service. It is true that the last Government put more money in, but it went into a leaky bucket and they got nothing out. This Government have taken a different approach. We are not just taking money from the Treasury, handing it out and then coming back for more. We are being very clear with providers and the system more generally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is talking at the NHS Confederation conference this afternoon; we are working with them to ensure that we look not just at the inputs, but at what goes on in the system. We want to ensure value for taxpayers’ money in all our constituencies. There are outstanding examples of both financial and operational good practice across the country. We want to take the best to the rest, and make the best of every taxpayer pound.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has demonstrated the difference that a Labour Government make to our NHS, and to the people of our country. As she mentioned, reform is needed. May I draw her attention to the report by the independent Commission on Palliative and End of Life Care? Around 100,000 people cannot access hospice care, and too few people are able to access specialist palliative care. The report demonstrates a new system of end of life and palliative care that will transform people’s end of life experience. To go alongside the reform agenda, will she ensure that we invest in that precious time in people’s lives, and deliver a comprehensive palliative care service?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is right to highlight end of life care. We know it has been neglected. I worked on it during my time in the health service, over 15 years ago, and I feel very passionately about it. It is important that we support people. We must have a system that allows people to have those conversations, and that ensures there are options for people throughout the pathway of their life. The Minister for Care is working hard to ensure that happens as part of our overall development of the health service over the next 10 years.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the funding envelope that she set out in a letter to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn in April stands unchanged after this spending review?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the news that waiting lists are continuing to fall, not by chance, but because of the choices made by this Government. As the Minister will know, both the hospitals that serve my constituency have reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and both have received funding, but as I visit GP surgeries and dentists, it is clear that there is a link between crumbling buildings and the availability of appointments. Will the Minister reassure me that primary care in particular will continue to be supported by upgrades to buildings?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for the great work that he is doing to support progress on work at the RAAC hospitals in his constituency. He makes the excellent point that such issues exist not only in hospitals. As our settlement makes clear, we understand the strain in primary care, as well as in mental health services and community services, which often do not get discussed. When we publish the 10-year plan later in the summer, he will see that the move towards community and neighbourhood health services will be front and centre of what we want to achieve over the next 10 years.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), I welcome the increased investment, and the attention that the new Government are giving to the NHS. I would like to turn our attention to dentistry. My constituency of South Devon is a dental desert. I welcome the announcement of 700,000 extra dental appointments, but we have lost three dental surgeries since the election last year, and more are on the brink. The Government have been in office for a year now, and have talked about reforming the dental contract with the NHS. If that contract is not reformed, we will lose so many dentists that we will never be able to catch up. How long will it take the Government to announce a newly reformed contract with NHS dentistry, so that we can start increasing the number of appointments, and saving the dentist surgeries that we have left?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the shocking state that dentistry was left in by the last Government. They could have reformed that contract at any time over the past 14 years. We were ready to do that in 2010, but things worked out differently; we left office, and the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives between them did not reform the contract. The Minister for Care is working at pace to ensure that happens, and we will update the House as soon as possible.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I very much welcome yesterday’s statement, the funding, and the fact that the funding will go on for several years. Does the Minister agree that we depend on the people in our NHS? Will she join me in congratulating Dr Cameron and all the teams at the West Suffolk hospital, who, by adopting a whole-hospital approach, have abolished corridor care and improved the hospital’s throughput, using a model that could be widely adopted?
Karin Smyth
I am very happy to thank Dr Cameron and the whole team. As ever, with his vast experience of the health service, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are reliant on clinical and managerial staff to make the system better. I know, and he knows, how low morale has been; Lord Darzi made that point very clear, and we cannot over-estimate how difficult that is for staff. That is why we have reached two record inflation-beating pay settlements for staff, and importantly, we have supported the independent process, because we want to work with staff to make things better at all levels. My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of how, by working with excellent clinical leadership and excellent managers, we can bring the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister will know that I too want to abolish corridor care at the Queen’s hospital in Romford. I thank her deeply for meeting me on Monday, with the chief executive of the NHS trust for Barking, Havering and Redbridge, Matthew Trainer, who is appealing for a new A&E facility at the Queen’s hospital. The situation has led to patients being cared for on trolleys in corridors. I find that unacceptable, and it is costing my local trust, which services 800,000 people in the area, an extra £100,000 a month because of additional staffing needs. Will the Minister ensure that what was said at our meeting is carried forward, and that we get a better facility for boroughs in the east London and Essex area, which the Queen’s hospital serves?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is unacceptable. I was pleased to meet him and his local NHS leaders this week. They made, as hon. Members always do, an excellent case. Clearly, the situation was left badly under his Government. I hope that he will welcome the extra measures in this settlement. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told him earlier that she looks forward to him joining us in the Division Lobby to support the extra funding. I hope that hon. Members know that, whatever party they come from, when I meet them, particularly in surgeries, I will follow up on the questions that are asked. They are often matters for the local integrated care board, but we will continue to work with all local systems to deliver the best care possible for all our constituents.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
As an NHS physiotherapist, I welcome the statement. The Government will soon launch their 10-year plan for our NHS, in which a focus will be a move from sickness to prevention. Will the Minister set out how the spending review will support Dudley integrated care board and other ICBs in bringing healthcare on to our high streets, so that patient care is at the heart of our communities?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent role she plays as a clinician. Her expertise is really welcome; we want to hear from a wide variety of experts in this House—that is very valuable. She understands from her professional background, as well as from her constituency, how important it is to look at the entire pathway of care for patients, and to ensure that they have the best possible care as close to home as possible. We think that is better not just for patients, but for clinical outcomes, and it is more efficient and better use of taxpayers’ money. The move from hospitals to communities is front and centre of our 10-year plan, as is delivering neighbourhood health services.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister will be well aware of Sir Andrew Dilnot’s ambitious plan to put a cap of £86,000 on the cost of the social care that any family would ever have to pay. It was never going to be easy to implement that. Previous Governments postponed the plan, and the Chancellor effectively scrapped it completely. May I appeal to the Minister to work across party lines, and to focus on the crippling debt that hits hard-working families when they come to the end of their working lives and need the support of the state?
Karin Smyth
I agree that this issue absolutely needs to be resolved. There was agreement previously, under the coalition, and it is so disappointing that it was so unceremoniously dumped when I came to this place in 2015; that was one of the first things that the subsequent Tory Government did. It was a great disappointment to many people across the country, particularly those who were responsible for supporting an older person or a disabled person. We have ensured that we will address this issue, and have appointed Louise Casey to lead the interim report. I know that she will continue to work with everybody, and that all hon. Members will take an active interest in that work.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I welcome the additional £29 billion of day-to-day funding and additional capital announced yesterday. Our investments are already paying interest, in the reduction of waiting lists. May I remind hon. Members of the announcements made earlier this year? I was particularly pleased that the Shotley Bridge hospital replacement in Consett was announced in wave 1, and I thank the Minister for her personal interest in ensuring that wave 1 happens. The 10-year plan will soon be announced. How will the comprehensive spending review announcements help us to shift from a sickness model to a prevention model?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the Government’s investment in the health service. She has been such a strong campaigner for Shotley Bridge, and it has been a pleasure to work with her; I know she has continued to advocate strongly on behalf of her local population. The hospital is needed, but as she knows, in her community—and all our communities—patients should not always be expected to travel to hospital for care that can be delivered closer to home. We see massive improvements in virtual care and technology, which is why we have announced a £10 billion increase for technology over the spending review period. We are improving the NHS app and ensuring that people are enabled to do more digitally, but I recognise that does not suit everybody, so we will ensure that parallel processes are available for everybody. Our constituents deserve and need care closer to home, and want more of it.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
More money for the NHS is of course welcome, although if we in the Green party had our way, it would be raised by taxing extreme wealth fairly, rather than by taxing work. The small amounts of money for social care announced in the spending review are nowhere close to the funding needed to tackle the social care crisis, and the burden is put on local authorities. In the Minister’s Department, there is a reduction in the revenue budget for social care and public health. When will her Government stop going slow on social care? When will they hold the long-promised and much-delayed cross-party talks? When will they recognise, as Lord Darzi has said, that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care? A truly joined-up approach to health and social care is long overdue.
Karin Smyth
The economics of the Green party are even more fantastical than the economics of the Conservatives and Reform; we all dread to think what things might be like under that party. We see that in the local council in my city of Bristol, and it is an absolute disaster. If the council could just get on with building council houses and social homes, it would help more people to live a better life, and would aid prevention. We are getting on with tackling social care. That was announced in the spending review, and that is what the Casey review will do.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the largest-ever capital investment in our NHS in the spending review yesterday, building on the Chancellor’s announcement in last year’s Budget of the money to rebuild RAAC-infested hospitals such as Frimley Park hospital, which will benefit my constituents. That was committed to by the previous Conservative Government, but, shockingly, it was never paid for. With the Government standing four-square behind rebuilding Frimley Park hospital, does the Minister agree it is time for Frimley Health NHS trust to get on and announce the site for the new hospital?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Chancellor’s statement and our commitment to the NHS. I know he has been working so hard on this issue on behalf of RAAC hospitals and Frimley Park hospital since he became a Member of Parliament last year, and we are four-square behind that work getting on. It is at the beginning of a very long queue in the new hospital programme. It is one of the things we inherited—we wish it was a better inheritance, but we are working with what we have. We have put the new hospital programme on a firm financial footing, and Frimley Park is at the beginning of that queue. We are very keen that people get on with it very quickly, because there are very many other people waiting behind them.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) is absolutely right about social care. We have a system in which healthcare is dependent on social care—Lord Darzi says so, and I think even Ministers have said so—yet all funding is going into the NHS, not into social care. We are fundamentally pouring the money into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. The Minister pretends the exact opposite of the truth. Will she share a more honest assessment with the House? What went on? Labour had 14 years to think about it, and here we are with the funding going into the NHS. As the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), said, the Minister is following on from the last Conservative Government and pouring more and more money into an unreformed NHS with a social care system underneath it that is broken, and she is not doing anything about it.
Karin Smyth
I have already given a history lesson about some of those 14 years. When the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in the coalition together, we had a commitment, a promise and a cross-party agreement; the Conservatives then got into government by themselves and broke it, so we are where we are. We want to invest in social care, which is why we have announced the £4 billion. We are seeing a very interesting alliance going on between our Green and Conservative colleagues; they agree on something, as we saw in the Lobby last week.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and the excellent work that this Government are doing in bringing additional investment in the NHS and bringing waiting lists down. We have had to make really difficult decisions to clear up the mess left by the previous Government, and I am sure we all agree that we need to protect our charitable adult social care providers. Will the Minister facilitate a meeting with myself and Woodlands Quaker Home in my constituency, which provides non-profit residential social care for older people so that they are able to carry on in the best way possible?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about bringing down waiting lists for his constituents, and we are so pleased to see that that is continuing, as we were able to announce this morning. He also makes an excellent point about social care providers, which do an amazing job for many of us who have close family members supported by them, and it is important that they are supported and work. I am not sure whether an answer to his question about a meeting needs to be from my Department or from my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I will ensure that he has an answer.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the funding announced to repair hospitals with RAAC, which will hopefully include Harrogate district hospital in my constituency. It has already received some money to remove RAAC in one building, which has since been demolished, but it still has a £15 million business case waiting with the Department of Health and Social Care for the next round of RAAC repairs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for repairs to hospitals such as Harrogate’s and for when we should expect to know if we will receive some of that funding?
Karin Smyth
We are committed to ensuring that those RAAC hospitals are sorted and fit for purpose, and I was able to visit Airedale myself recently. We are asking people on the ground to do a really difficult job, keeping hospitals going and serving patients while remedying the problem of RAAC. I do not have in front of me the exact timescale for the hon. Gentleman’s hospital, but I encourage it to work very closely with the team at the Department of Health, which I think is working really well. As long as a clear timetable has been put forward, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a response to his question.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. The NHS is the No. 1 issue for my constituents, and I know that they will welcome the investment in the spending review. My constituency is a rural area, and one thing people often raise with me is ambulance waiting times, which I am pleased to report have improved in every category over the past year. Can the Minister explain how the spending review will ensure continued improvements in ambulance waiting times, supporting my constituents to get emergency care when they need it?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of ambulances. We ensured that they were a key part of our urgent and emergency care plan, which was issued the week before last, I think—I cannot remember the exact date. We recognise how crucial that issue is, and how much more can be done by ambulances by the roadside. I was privileged to go out with the South Western ambulance service recently; it is so impressive to spend time on the frontline with people who are dealing with whatever comes at them. We know that they can do more, including remotely. We are very keen to ensure that ambulances do not spend time outside hospitals; that is why we have introduced a 45-minute turnaround time through the release to rescue scheme, which has worked very successfully in many parts of the country. We are keen to see that scheme rolled out across the country, so that we do not have ambulances queuing outside of hospitals with people, but put them back on the road where they need to be.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
We have been here before with Governments of all different political persuasions. Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and trumpet what seem like very attractive amounts of money for the NHS, but the reality on the ground is that that money just about covers pay rises and inflationary pressures. On care, Buckinghamshire council and no doubt all councils are worried that the money being offered up may only just cover things such as the fair pay agreement. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that with increasing amounts of councils’ budgets rightly being spent on care, they will get funded for things such as the fair pay agreement separately from core social care spend?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman says that we have been here before, and we really have. I was on a primary care trust board under the last Labour Government, so I saw at first hand what good government, working with local systems, can deliver: the best patient satisfaction in the NHS’s history, the lowest waiting lists, and the best access to GP and primary care. We have been here before, and that is what we will do again. From the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I do not understand whether he wants more spending or less. That is what the Conservative party is still not saying; its Members stand up and ask for more, like Liberal Democrat Members, but they will not identify the means of raising that money—in fact, they oppose them.
To respond to the specific question that the hon. Gentleman asked, over the coming weeks, my colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will obviously be outlining in more detail how the spending review will fall out.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this brilliant investment in our NHS, which will also be welcomed by my constituents. I know that this Labour Government will ensure that everyone in every part of the country benefits, including women. Last year, I highlighted that women in Norfolk face the longest waits in the country for gynaecological care, with hundreds waiting more than a year for treatment for conditions such as endometriosis. Can the Minister assure me that as we advance these plans for the NHS, we will ensure that we tackle those waiting lists? Far too many women are paying the price for years of inaction under the Conservatives.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend has been such a strong and powerful campaigner for women’s health since becoming an MP last year, and she is absolutely right to do that. I am pleased that we have been able to make some progress on conditions such as endometriosis. Many campaigns have been fought by many women in this House—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may say so—to highlight the importance of this issue. We see women’s health as front and centre. We want to learn from the women’s health hubs in their different guises and ensure that they are an integral part of neighbourhood health services.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I was really saddened that there was no mention of cancer in the Minister’s statement, so I will give her the opportunity to correct that omission. Will this new money for our NHS ensure that all cancer waiting time targets are met by the end of this Parliament, and can the Minister confirm that those targets will be included in the 10-year health plan? Finally, have Ministers had a chance to read my 11-page letter and accompanying submission on what should be in the national cancer plan?
Karin Smyth
I have a slight “get out of jail free” card, because I think that letter might be with one of my colleagues, not with me. Obviously, though, I look forward to the summary.
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about cancer. I would have to check, but I do not think I mentioned lots of disease-specific areas, including key manifesto commitments such as dentistry. Obviously, cancer is a huge part of waiting lists overall. We will get those waiting lists down—we are determined to meet that target—and we will issue a cancer plan later in the year.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for supporting the launch of Sarcoma UK’s report yesterday. The recommendations in that report are really important for tackling that awful rare cancer.
I welcome the ambition in what has been presented, but the comparison with what my Edinburgh South West constituents face in Scotland could not be more stark. I have just come from a meeting in which, yet again, I have been trying to defend the mental health provision at Scottish Action for Mental Health’s Redhall walled garden; in contrast, I hear from the Dispatch Box real ambition to support people with mental health problems. People in Scotland are also jealous of the falling waiting lists they see in England, and hope that one day, they will arrive in Scotland. May I ask the Minister to keep on being ambitious, in the hope—because hope is all I have—that some of it will rub off on the Scottish Government?
As Madam Deputy Speaker is feeling a little generous, may I also say that Saturday will mark the 200th Oriam parkrun in my constituency? If we are serious about preventative healthcare activities, parkrun is a great example of how we can improve both our mental health and our physical health. The Minister is welcome to attend, of course.
Karin Smyth
I always shudder a little when I am invited to do any running, jogging, boxing or whatever else people get up to—we all have our own things we like doing. Although my hon. Friend’s fabulous city is a great place to be, I will not be able to join in this weekend, but I wish good luck to everybody taking part.
We all live in hope that the SNP might learn some lessons from what we are doing to fix our NHS. We remain willing to work with the SNP, and with anybody who wants to serve patients and get a better service for their taxes. If the SNP wants to get in touch, it can do so, but the best thing to do is to elect a Labour Government in Scotland, which will hopefully happen soon.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about mental health. We are committed, as we said in our manifesto, to 8,500 more people working in mental health, and to ensure that our schools and young people have the support they deserve.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for agreeing to visit North Devon district hospital very shortly, and I look forward to welcoming her to my constituency. Despite some welcome extra repairs under the estates safety fund, that hospital now faces many years of make do and mend. What provision have the Government put aside for those years of increasing maintenance costs?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. His invitation has been a long-running one, and sometimes his diary has been busier than mine, but I think we finally have a date to go to North Devon, which I am looking forward to. It is a challenged system—we had a good debate yesterday in Westminster Hall about many of the problems in Devon, and I know he will review that debate carefully. Devon is one of the systems that we are looking closely at. It has had deficit funding this year, but we want to eradicate deficit funding from the system, so we are looking very closely at how every single system uses all of its money. I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to support the Government in ensuring that his local taxpayers get the best service for their money.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I welcome the comprehensive spending review and its focus on NHS funding. It will deliver on Labour’s election promise to get the NHS back on its feet, which will be of so much benefit to my constituents. Does the Minister agree that nearly one year on, this Labour Government are really tackling the disastrous Conservative-Liberal Democrat reforms introduced under the Lansley legislation?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend has been such a strong advocate for Watford since he came into this Chamber, and in particular for ensuring that that hospital is in the new hospital programme. I look forward to visiting his constituency soon, because I know we lost some time.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know if he knows this, but others will have heard me say before that one of the terrible consequences of the Lansley reforms was that they made me so angry as a manager in the system that I decided to become a Member of Parliament, and here we are today. We have learned from the lack of focus on the frontline and on patient care. That is why we are so clear—whether in the reforms we have put forward on elective care and urgent emergency care, or in the planned reforms on dentistry and primary care, in the 10-year plan and on social care—that we have to keep a relentless focus not just on taxpayers’ money, but on patients. The people’s priorities are clear. They want the NHS to do better, but they are clear in their demands that we make it work better for them and make sure that every single pound of taxpayers’ money is working to the best effect.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and this Government’s commitment to investing in the NHS, but she did not address how that funding will be allocated across the country. My constituency of Blackburn has one of the worst GP to patient ratios, with more than 3,200 patients per GP. That is placing immense strain on primary care and pushing patients to an already overstretched hospital that is frequently on red alert. Will the Minister ensure that areas with such disparities, like Blackburn, receive targeted support? Will she meet me to address these long-standing imbalances in healthcare provision?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on primary care, which sees 90% of contacts with the NHS and is where most people experience the NHS. That is why it is very much in our sights to support that work. As part of our 10-year plan, we will bring forward the neighbourhood health service to make sure that people can be seen more locally. That will be built around using primary and community care to best effect. He makes a point about funding formulas. We had a long debate about that yesterday in Westminster Hall, and it is an area of huge controversy. He will see over the coming weeks how the funding is allocated. NHS England did issue—if he has not seen it, I will make sure that he has access to it—guidance on the funding formula and where the different systems are in relation to that. We want to move everybody towards that target, and I am happy to discuss that with him once he has had a look.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This Government have made phenomenal progress on the elective care waiting lists left by the last Government, but the progress on mental health waiting lists has been stubbornly slow, with 1.2 million people still waiting for treatment. That includes 62,000 people covered by the West Yorkshire ICB that serves my Calder Valley constituency, which I think is the second-highest figure in the country. Can my hon. Friend please assure me that we will use this settlement to redouble the work we have done on elective waiting lists, while also putting a real focus on mental health waiting lists?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on mental health, which is of great concern to all Members. He is right that elective care and mental health are measured in different ways, but we are committed to supporting mental health services with 8,500 extra staff. We are making sure in particular that young people in schools are supported. We know that the situation has been terrible for young people in our country, and we will continue to provide that relentless focus.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Labour Government have committed more money to the NHS, and that has to be welcomed. For that reason, I thank the Minister for her statement today. The Chancellor yesterday announced some £50 million—this does tie in to health—for Casement Park. However, the Government were clear that that was dependent on funding from the Northern Ireland Executive. Does the Minister expect the Northern Ireland Executive to take extra moneys granted to the Northern Ireland Assembly through Barnett consequentials and divert them to a sports stadium? Are the moneys for the NHS ringfenced and protected? If not, how do I look parents in the eye in my constituency of Strangford, when their child cannot receive cutting-edge medical technology because money has to be found for a sports stadium?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, and he understands how the funding settlement for the Department of Health and Social Care is allocated through the Barnett formula to Northern Ireland.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
This investment is so welcome, because my constituents in Cannock Chase have been struggling to access urgent care between their GP and accident and emergency since our hospital’s minor injuries unit was temporarily closed in March 2020. Despite the welcome investment in Rawnsley surgery, Chadsmoor medical practice and Red Lion surgery in my constituency, our ICB plans to kibosh any hope of our MIU reopening. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s huge investment in our NHS needs to be felt in the parts of the country, such as my towns and villages, that were so badly let down by the Conservatives? Will she meet me to discuss the worrying urgent care reform proposals for Staffordshire?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the extra support for GP and primary care. I am sure he understands from our urgent and emergency care plan that we have a number of arrangements for making sure that people are seen urgently in local community settings. It is for local ICBs to decide on the best way, within that urgent emergency care plan, for people to be seen locally and treated within the available resources. I am happy to meet him, perhaps at an upcoming surgery, to discuss that further.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
My constituents in Blackpool South will never forgive or forget that the previous Government left us with the worst health outcomes in the country. We have an ICB having to make £350 million of cuts. The hospital that my son and I were born in has been left inadequate and one of the worst in the country. We have dental deserts. People cannot get access to mental health counsellors or GPs. I welcome the millions of pounds allocated to Victoria hospital and to health outcomes in my constituency by this Government, and we are seeing waiting lists finally coming down. Does the Minister agree that we need to continue on this path and give deprived areas, such as Blackpool, more support to get our waiting lists down to an acceptable level?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that his constituents and constituents across this country will not forgive the Conservatives for the state in which they left the NHS. That is clear from Lord Darzi’s diagnosis. We have still had no comment from the Conservatives on whether they acknowledge that. We are determined to be about the future, and that is what this settlement and the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday are about. It is about putting that extra funding that we raised last year into services and into a reformed system that reaches all parts of this country. We will tackle health inequalities, making sure that people who have not had that access and people who suffer worse health than others are raised up. We must take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
After more than an hour of diligent bobbing, I call Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Apologies for my premature bobbing earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Minister for her statement today and for her ongoing commitment to the NHS. I welcome the growth in day-to-day spending on the NHS and this Government’s commitment to bringing down NHS waiting times. However, may I gently advocate for Harlow in respect of the future of the UK Health Security Agency? It has a business case, details, designs and a site ready to go, and the estimated timeframe has consistently been assessed as the best value for money and the quickest to deliver.
Karin Smyth
I like how my hon. Friend says “gently”, because honestly no day goes past without him talking about this issue or, indeed, his new hospital. He is right, and he is a fantastic campaigner for the people of Harlow. He has made his point again, and I cannot make any further comment today, but he will be hearing from the Secretary of State soon on that issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. I ask anyone who is leaving before the Select Committee statement to do so quickly and quietly.
Industrial Strategy
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Business and Trade Committee. Liam Byrne 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, not speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Ministers, and that Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to commend to the House the seventh report of our Select Committee and the combined brilliance of Committee members in setting out a plan, a blueprint and a framework for scrutiny of the industrial strategy, which is still to come.
Our report starts with a note of optimism, because the truth is that we stand on the cusp of a once-in-a-century transformation of our economy, from which Britain stands to gain enormously. In the next decade alone, the world economy may grow by something like £25 trillion, and those prizes could be seized by Britain. In the race on which we have embarked, we happen to hold many of the cards. In a world that is building walls, we in this country are building bridges to new markets. In a world that is about to be transformed by artificial intelligence, we are a science superpower. In a world that is crying out for energy, we are on the cusp of building green energy abundance.
Time and again throughout our long history, these isles of wonder have made history by inventing the future. Even now, we have the future potential in our grasp in a way that we have not had for decades, but this report is a sobering read, because its conclusion is that our performance right now is very different from our potential, and promise is not going to be delivery. Unless we remake the state for a new age and renew the partnership between public ambition and private enterprise, we will squander the riches that could lie within our grasp.
Our Committee has found that we are trapped by obstacles of our own making. We have sky-high energy costs that are driving away industry. We have a broken system of procurement that squanders £350 billion every single year—£1 in every £6 of our GDP. We have a chronic skills gap that locks out millions from the potential jobs that they could get stuck into, and which denies firms the skills that they need to grow. We have blocks on innovation diffusion that hoard breakthroughs with superstar firms. We have a finance system that all too often starves scale-ups of capital, and we have a Whitehall machine that is over-centralised, risk averse and too complex to drive change at the speed that the modern economy demands.
Those are not conditions of growth; they are conditions of decline, and this country needs to rally to fix them fast. We therefore argue in the report that the industrial strategy has to break through the confines on growth. We need an ambition that is as great as the challenge before us, and we argue that that means mobilising public and private action around the grand challenges—the moonshots that are going to define the next century. We argue that we should maximise domestic demand through a dramatic overhaul of our public procurement system. We need to maximise foreign demand for the things that we make here through the trade deals that we strike with our allies around the world. We need to rewire the institutions of our economy in skills, energy, finance and innovation, and we then need to transform Whitehall itself by devolving power where we can, cutting red tape and putting regions back in control of their own destiny.
In this report, we set out practical steps for how we can achieve every single one of those ambitions, and we then set 10 tests by which the forthcoming industrial strategy could be best judged. There must be vision, so that we can steer effectively. There must be metrics, so that we can judge progress effectively. There should be grand challenges set out by the Government to help galvanise a rally around national purpose and the possibilities of the future. There has got to be procurement reform, so that the £350 billion that the state spends each year drives domestic demand in new ways. There has to be trade alignment to connect our strengths with the global marketplace into which we sell. There has to be far better access to scale-up finance, to stop businesses being lifted and shifted—largely to the United States. There has to be cheaper energy, because we heard overwhelmingly that our energy prices are simply uncompetitive. There must be devolved skills funding where mayoral areas can prove that they are fit for purpose, to help manage and organise technical education. There needs to be much wider diffusion of research in order to spread prosperity. Above all, there has to be leadership from the very top, driven by the Prime Minister himself, and there have to be new ways in which we cut through the incoherence of regulation that bedevils business today.
We propose a bold devolution of power, money and responsibility, particularly to mayoral areas where they can prove that they are up to the task. We propose new legislation to put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on a statutory footing, with the Prime Minister chairing meetings at least once a quarter. We propose that the Regulatory Innovation Office be expanded and moved to the Cabinet Office, and that it take on the role of a clearing house to make sure that there is somewhere that business can go in order to highlight ridiculous conflicts between rules and regulations that just hold back growth day after day. We also propose hardwiring the link between the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the new Council of the Nations and Regions.
Yesterday, we saw some progress on a number of our recommendations—our Committee is nothing if not influential with both the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade. On capital access, the British Business Bank is now set to receive almost £3 billion in order to crowd in tens of billions of pounds more, and the National Wealth Fund will grow to almost £30 billion, but we have to simplify access to that finance for businesses that need it. On energy, we had confirmation of investments in Sizewell C, offshore wind and small nuclear reactors, but we need lower energy costs in the here and now. On skills, there will be an extra £1.2 billion by 2028 for 65,000 more learners, but the skills governance reforms that we need were not quite clear enough, and business needs those reforms pronto. On research and development, £22.6 billion a year was promised by 2029, and there are targeted funds for advanced manufacturing, defence innovation, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, and the new Edinburgh supercomputer.
Those are good beginnings, but without a clear plan to diffuse the best ideas to every corner of our economy, we will not get the uplift in productivity that this country needs. There are without doubt big challenges, but what gave us heart as we took evidence over the course of this year is that business, trade unions and consumer groups are up for the challenge. They genuinely believe that we can become the fastest-growing economy in the G7. In 32 conclusions and recommendations, we set out very clearly the steps that Ministers could and should take in order to unlock the possibilities of the future.
My final message is that we should draw a lesson from our history. Over the course of the last century and since the days of Joseph Chamberlain, there have been geopolitical shocks every 20 to 30 years that have forced us to think anew about the sovereign capabilities that we need, which always leads to conclusions about how we remake the state for new times. We are at exactly such a moment in our history, and yesterday gave us some heart that there is investment going into the things that business needs.
This Government want to invest in growth, good jobs and good wages, but the potential of this country will be squandered unless we now build on the kinds of ambitions that we heard yesterday and implement the steps that our Committee has set out. Above all, I think that our plan is practical, and I have no reservation in commending it to the House.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee for his hard work. It is really heartening that the report has received cross-party support on the Committee and across the House. This is about growth and the economy, which affect every single one of our constituents. Does he agree that the word “practical” is absolutely right in this case? The industrial strategy cannot simply be a Soviet-style tractor production statistics list—it cannot be self-congratulatory. Our report is practical and provides almost a blueprint, and its implementation is absolutely key. The right hon. Gentleman has done an excellent job of setting out the potential that is within our reach. The trick is to make it within our grasp.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This report is an awful lot stronger for the raft of amendments that he brought forward, and for the thought and devotion he put into Committee hearings and the interrogation of our witnesses. He is absolutely right because, ultimately, we as a country will not unlock performance that matches our potential unless we think again about the way in which business and the Government work together for new times. That is the only way in which we will both tackle the stubborn challenges of the past, particularly the under-investment that has bedevilled us for so long, and navigate the seminal challenges of the future. There is no ideology in this report—well, perhaps there is, but the only ideology is a confidence in our country and a confidence that we can be better than we are today—which is a practical blueprint for turning those ambitions into action.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Committee for the opportunity to come in on the topic of this important inquiry, which I was glad to be a part of. One of the best days of the inquiry was the day we welcomed a roundtable of small and medium-sized enterprises in the automotive sector to talk to us about the threat posed to them at the time from the tariffs imposed by the United States and more broadly about the challenges that SMEs face in advanced manufacturing and automotive. Does he agree that, as our report sets out, the industrial strategy must be one for SMEs across all the growth sectors, as well as for the large primes and big organisations?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence base we were able to assemble was an awful lot stronger because of her connections with small businesses in her constituency and the insights she was able to bring from the world of labour. The point she makes is absolutely right. Past industrial strategies have sometimes conjured up images of corporate Britain calling the shots, but this country’s real potential is actually in abundance in smaller firms. Unless we can make sure that on our islands it is easier to start a business, easier to scale up a business, easier to hire people and easier to give people a pay rise, we are not going to unlock our full potential, and that is what this report sets out to do. We have clearly in our minds the richness and potential of our smaller firms, and we want our economy to be a bigger and better place for them.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement and his Committee’s report, which is welcome. The summary clearly says:
“Britain’s economic institutions and markets—especially in public procurement, energy, skills”
and, critically,
“the diffusion of innovation and finance—must be modernised for new times.”
In the spirit of the partnership he spoke of between the public sector and private sector, he will no doubt have been glued to the debate on the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill yesterday, when I pointed out that most of the Government’s advanced fuels funding is going on foreign-owned technologies. How does he think, and did his Committee consider, the way that the approach to Government grant schemes for innovation needs to change to ensure that we keep talent and innovation here at home?
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. We have heard time and again—we heard it in relation to life sciences, defence and clean energy—that we have some of the best thinkers in the world, but they often struggle to get the start-up finance or the scale-up finance they need to turn those ambitions into new businesses. As someone who spent four years building a business before I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got elected to this House, I know that what small businesses need to grow are sales. That is why we need to be doing a much smarter job of marrying public contracts with access to scale-up finance, but that will take the institutions we have today working very differently in the future.
Perhaps our most shocking evidence session was on the subject of public procurement, when the chief commercial officer of His Majesty’s Government was just not clear how many jobs, how much economic growth and what levels of wages were driven by £1 of GDP. That is simply not good enough. I hope that there is cross-party consensus about these reforms because, ultimately, this is a once in 50 years moment. Our recommendations should command cross-party support, because that is how we ensure that they are sustainable for the long term.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) about working across the parties—this is about growth—and about the Chair driving this forward. The 10 tests we have outlined are about how the document has a real-world impact. For me, two of the tests are clear. First, how does an industrial strategy galvanise action across the Government? With previous industrial strategies, good as they may well have been, Departments other than Business did not see it as their responsibility to deliver. We must make sure that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Transport and so on have ownership too and responsibility for delivering the strategy. I am keen to get my right hon. Friend’s comments on that. Secondly, how does this industrial strategy create a positive operating environment so that boardrooms in the UK and across the world see the UK as a place to invest and do business? Again, I am keen for his comments on that.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful for that question. Again, the report is a lot stronger for the insights my hon. Friend was able to bring to what was a very sustained inquiry. We must recognise that two problems have bedevilled industrial strategies in this country in the past. One is stop-start—we get some progress, but then we stop, and then we think again. That point was made, with some power, by Greg Clark, whose work I commend and whose evidence I want to highlight.
This is about building a different kind of partnership for a different kind of economy. We have tremendous strengths: we love the rule of law; we are politically stable; we are an open trading economy; and we are a science superpower. This is a great place to do business, but if we are to become the world’s favourite place to invest, we must change the way that the Government and the private sector work together. If we get it right, the Industrial Strategy Council could be exactly that place, but the offer our Committee makes to the business community is that where things get stuck, we are here to help.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I can run this only until 2 pm, so can questions and answers be brief, please?
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the Chair for his leadership; we enjoy being under it. To focus on one thing, energy costs are causing havoc around the country, leading to many companies going to the wall. Does he think this emergency should be to dealt with by cutting energy costs, dealing with the distortions between gas and electricity, and giving better access to manufacturers so that they can get the power they need?
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Perhaps the most critical test of the industrial strategy, when it is published, will be whether it brings industrial energy costs down. If it fails that test, it is going to struggle to make progress.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent chairship of the Committee. He spoke about the grand challenges we face. We heard in the evidence sessions how we have such structural challenges—we have just heard about energy, and we could say the same about skills particularly —so could he say a bit more about some of the work being done and the need for a whole-of-Government approach?
Liam Byrne
That is absolutely right. The challenges we face as a country are so large that no one Department, business or sector can solve them on their own. The only way to crack the code of that challenge and to reach our ambitions for the future is by mobilising a whole-of-society approach. Otherwise, frankly, we are going to fail and squander the potential in front of us.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It seems quite radical to suggest, as the report does, devolving responsibility for post-16 technical education and training to local leaders and transferring responsibility for skills to the Department for Business and Trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman briefly expand on that, and explain how it relates to apprenticeships on the one hand and university education on the other?
Liam Byrne
This was an important area of debate when we were framing our recommendations. We felt that where mayoral areas could show ability—that might be a limited number—they might be much better able to understand the needs of business and to ensure that local technical colleges in particular provide the right kinds of skills and of qualifications. Sometimes we take too much of a central planning approach to the skills system, which means we are just not agile enough for the needs of employers today, and skills gaps therefore loom much too large.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chair for the report, particularly for the framing in which it lands the industrial strategy. From reading the report, I believe there could be greater emphasis on the convening role of higher education—universities—not just as a driver of R&D and skills, but for the industrial clusters in their locality. Does he agree that the strategy could be more focused on building on the role of higher education as a collaborator and a co-ordinator?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is right. We have to be careful not to stray too far into the territory of our sister Committee, but once upon a time we built villages around factories; in today’s economy, we need to build local economies around universities. The role of universities in empowering economic change is something we will want to return to in the very near future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Final two questions and answers—very short, please.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the Select Committee, the Chair and its members on the publication of the report. Which of the 10 tests ensure that business growth will be ethical, moral and responsible, and which of the tests protect the consumers, the public and the environment?
Liam Byrne
A very clear answer: leadership from the top—and that means coming from the Prime Minister directly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair and the Committee very much for the report. It is incredibly helpful. The Chair referred to growth for all within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the industrial strategy. One of the issues for Northern Ireland companies has been buying into the public procurement process. Perhaps the Chair could tell us how we in Northern Ireland can catch up with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Liam Byrne
We heard this message loud and clear from Harland and Wolff when we were there: long-term contracts, not year-to-year contracts, with real stability so that a genuine partnership can grow and grow stronger over time.
SEND Funding
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the distribution of SEND funding.
I am delighted to have secured this debate, as it gives us an opportunity to highlight the situation we are facing in England, where children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left behind due to the inherent regional inequality in the high-needs national funding formula. There is a bigger issue. The more typical thing we talk about is the overall quantum of spending based on overall need, but too little attention is given to the distribution of the funding that exists, whether in healthcare, education, policing or otherwise. I know I am not the only Member being turned to by constituents at their wits’ end, trying to navigate what feels to be a broken system; I thank colleagues across the House for their continued advocacy on behalf of some of the most vulnerable children in all our communities.
My argument is a simple yet deeply important one: the current model of SEND funding is not only inconsistent but in too many cases profoundly unfair. It fails to account for genuine levels of need, the realities faced by families, and the systemic pressures that schools and local authorities are under. Unless that changes, we will continue to fail children who rely on Members to make their case and to get this right.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a profoundly important point. There is a real and urgent need to reform the SEND system, and that of course includes how it is funded. Does he welcome the £750 million ringfenced in yesterday’s spring statement for exactly that: to transform our SEND system to make it fairer for parents, better for young people and more sustainable for the future?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman takes me to a point further on in my speech, but he is absolutely right. He makes the case to the Minister, exactly as I intend to: given that we have a broken distribution system and given the severity of its impact on so many children and families, will she ensure that the money in the spending review is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, used precisely for that purpose and that we target those who are most left behind?
At the heart of this debate, I am calling on the Government to identify and commit to a clear baseline cost for delivering effective SEND support per pupil. The figure must reflect what it genuinely takes, in both urban and rural settings, to support children with complex needs across the country. Only then can we ensure that no child’s opportunity is limited by where they live.
I want to bring to the attention of the House a stark example that illustrates the postcode lottery in SEND funding: the disparity between the East Riding of Yorkshire, which covers my own constituency of Beverley and Holderness, at the lowest end of the funding spectrum—we are the lowest funded in the country—and the London borough of Camden, which happens to be the highest. Camden, by any standard, is a well-resourced inner-city borough with strong proximity to specialist services. It currently receives £3,564.95 of SEND funding for each pupil in its area. Meanwhile, in East Riding—a rural area with fewer nearby services, longer travel distances and greater challenges in recruitment and retention—per-pupil high-needs funding comes in at around £968. That is a gap of over £2,500 for every single child requiring extra support. In real terms, if East Riding’s funding was matched not with Camden but with the second most poorly funded local authority, we would have an extra £18 million per year on top of the £43 million we receive in the higher needs block—£18 million extra. If we were brought into line with Camden, we would have an extra £100 million.
Some might argue that urban areas face different pressures, and of course they do, but let us be clear: the cost of delivering quality SEND provision in rural areas is not lower. In fact, it is often significantly higher. Transport costs—colleagues across the House will be aware of children who have to be moved great distances to access their support—for children with complex needs can be astronomical. Recruiting specialist staff, such as special educational needs co-ordinators, to work in isolated schools is a constant challenge. When services such as educational psychologists or speech and language therapists are not based locally, schools and families face unacceptable delays in accessing the assessments needed to unlock further support. Why, then, is rurality not factored into the high-needs funding formula?
What that means in practice is that two children with identical needs, living in different parts of the country, will receive vastly different levels of support. One might have their education, health and care plan reviewed on time, access in-school provision, and benefit from local therapy services. The other might be left waiting months for assessment, with a school already at breaking point trying to bridge the gap. This disparity will have a long-term detriment to children’s outcomes.
This is not a criticism of any local authority—Camden, like all areas, faces its own pressures and challenges—but the system we have allows such disparities to persist without sufficient recourse or flexibility. These widely varying funding allocations create a two-tiered system in what should be a national commitment. Colleagues from across the House will be familiar with constituents whose stories lay bare the human cost of this imbalance, whether it is parents desperately trying to navigate the EHCP system, the lack of suitable school places nearby to cope with the measures required by their EHCP, or schools struggling to cope.
This is also certainly not a party political point. Successive Governments have sat over funding disparities and struggled with the politics. They have been unprepared to reallocate, perhaps for understandable reasons. The people you take money from tend to be much angrier than the people you give it to are happy: one marches on Westminster, the other grunts and says, “About time.” It is a truly difficult thing. I have been in this place for 20 years and have struggled to get Ministers to accept reallocation and reapportionment. Rather than asking for that demand, which I have so far failed in 20 years of effort to get anybody to implement, I hope to come up with something more practical, if compromised as a result.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on his length of service to this House.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend, the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip—and indeed my Whip—is very welcome. Thanks very much; I am grateful for that.
We have this issue of how we fix a broken and clearly unfair system. Newer colleagues, and there are many of them in the House, might think, “Well, surely people would want to fix it. There is no perfect system and there will always be dispute, but if the Government did a map of need—fundamentally, an assessment of what fair would look like—and then mapped against that line where everyone was, newer Members might think, “The Government might be prepared to do something with those who are most overfunded to help compensate the underfunded.” My experience is that they do not and will not, so I will discuss practical ways of getting change. What typically happens is that despite Ministers’ talk in debates like this one, we end up with the Treasury at a spending occasion like yesterday giving 3%; if inflation is 2.5%, it gives 3% to everybody. That means that the cash gap between one authority and another grows, and in a sense the injustice grows with it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for leading the debate. I am conscious that York is in the bottom third, and that the level of children being diagnosed with SEND is rising sharply. Does he agree that in order to future-proof the system, we need to look at a more holistic, therapeutic and nurturing approach to our education system so that all children benefit? I looked at the situation in Sweden and saw how that not only brought down costs, but greatly benefited the children there.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is two things: she is quite right, and she is tempting me down a path I do not want to go down—I want to focus on the distribution, because it does not get the attention. However, she is absolutely right. Labour criticises the performance of the then Conservative Government, but I think funding for SEND actually grew 60% from 2019 to 2024. She is right that it is not about who is in government—somehow, we need to find ways of capping this demand, which will outstrip any Chancellor, however well intentioned. That is an issue.
I will turn back to the point on which I am focusing, which is distribution. If demand in a system is growing at a scale that no Government can meet, distribution, although ignored, becomes even more important. If a system is straining and struggling, having grossly unfair distribution that no one seeks to or is able to defend—it is not a case of one party or the other claiming they are getting it right; they recognise it is unjust—is a major mistake, and we must find ways to balance it over time. It is not obvious at the moment that anyone is able to stop this imbalance between supply, which is so small, and demand, which is so big.
Colleagues will have local champions back home who do their best to fight against regional inequalities. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Councillor Victoria Aitken in the East Riding, who is the portfolio holder responsible for SEND, and her role with the f40 group. For any newer Members present, the f40 group fights on the issues of and focuses on the funding formula disparities. It is technical and quite dull, but it is vital for the provision of services to our constituents. In her role with the f40 group, Victoria has been tireless in campaigning to address these issues within the SEND system, but sadly, the work of Victoria and others like her is not enough.
I want to share the story of my constituent Ellie and her son Harry, who is nine and a half years old and has ADHD. From the very start of his education—as early as foundation stage—both Ellie and his teachers recognised that Harry needed extra support. However, without an EHCP in place, the help he required simply was not available, despite the school doing all that it could.
Last summer, as Harry was preparing to enter year 4, Ellie contacted me in desperation. Harry was still only just beginning to read, and was spending his break times playing with children much younger than himself. Ellie had fought tirelessly to secure an assessment so that he could access one-to-one support, but the process was gruelling, and caseworkers were at capacity. Ellie had to give up her job to dedicate herself to the countless hours needed to complete forms, lodge appeals, chase responses and provide support at home. She put her own education on hold and, in her own words, has had to “battle the system” every step of the way.
Just last week, after years of delay, Harry was finally granted an EHCP. However, the school still does not know when the funding will arrive to put the support, which has now been recognised, in place. Harry will start year 5 this September, several years behind his peers. Ellie describes Harry as a kind and lovely boy who has been failed—not by his school, but by a system that delays, deflects and denies the support that children like Harry need. Yet Ellie remains determined to keep fighting, no matter the cost to her or her family, to ensure that Harry gets the help he deserves.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I declare my usual interests: my wife is a special educational needs co-ordinator at a local authority school in our patch, and my daughter has an EHCP and a complex set of disabilities, so I have absolutely fought this battle myself. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he has just described is a broken system that needs reform, and that whatever we see in the White Paper in the autumn, we will hopefully see reform that relies in particular on more training for all teachers across the profession? I think that is some of what he has just described.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a capacity issue, as I say, relating to demand. Getting people—not just specialists, but the whole system and everyone in it—to have a better understanding is really important. The hon. Gentleman will see that in his constituency, as I do in mine. It is not enough just to have the SENCO; it is about getting the leadership, the training and the right protocols in place to ensure that the whole system is better able to meet the needs of children, and that will then reduce some of the other impacts, including cost impacts, on the system.
In recent weeks, I had the privilege of visiting Inmans primary school in Hedon, where staff spoke candidly about the mounting pressure created by soaring demand for SEND provision—pressures that far exceed the funding currently available. At St Mary’s school in Beverley, headteacher Laura Wallis expressed her deep concern at the growing gap between pupils’ needs and the resources she has at her disposal, making it ever-more difficult to provide the tailored support every child deserves.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I have met people from about 18 schools, both here in Westminster and at home in the constituency, and, more recently, have heard the voices of young people on SEND in Doncaster. At every single meeting, the first questions asked are about support, capacity, and young adults’ transition into work. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to get the funding right, we need to listen to the voices of people with experience—those at the grassroots—to ensure that we understand their ideas and solutions, and direct funding into the right places?
Graham Stuart
I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes a powerful point. My appeal to colleagues in the Chamber—particularly, perhaps, to newer Members —is to focus on the distribution. It can be quite hard to get one’s head around the many issues that are involved—the overall national issues of quantum, service delivery, training and the rest of it—and distribution can easily get left behind, yet it is vital. I cannot say that it brings a great deal of joy or satisfaction to Members of Parliament to pursue it, because so many people look blank when it is mentioned, but distribution is important, and I hope that colleagues will want to take on the issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Very quickly, some children thrive academically, while some thrive practically. It is all about finding the right place for them, whether as a doctor, a mechanic, a plasterer or a farmer. When it comes to checking on a child’s ability, and ensuring that they find their place, we must acknowledge that there is not a standard box for all; it is different for each child.
Graham Stuart
As usual, the hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head.
Many across this House will recognise the stories of the schools I have just mentioned, because the same thing is playing out in constituencies across the country. Parents are becoming de facto care co-ordinators; schools are dipping into ever-shrinking budgets to fund specialist provision; and local authorities are caught between legal responsibilities and budgetary reality.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I was contacted by a parent in my constituency who was forced to navigate a complex and lengthy tribunal process simply to challenge the decision to place her autistic son in a mainstream school, only to have the hearing cancelled at the last moment, and a place at a special school offered. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that education, health and care plans are not a silver bullet, that we should not need complex legal processes to ensure that young people can access good early support, that support must meet the young person’s needs, and that the money must follow the child or young person?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I was chairing the Education Committee when the coalition Government introduced the reforms that brought in EHCPs as a replacement for statements. I remember thinking then that lots of good improvements were made—there were very sincere Ministers working hard at it, and they brought in a better system—but the fundamentals remained as they were. One of the aims was to get away from an adversarial, legalistic process, in which articulate and typically better-off people were able to use sharp elbows to get their child what they needed, but pity the inarticulate single mother unable to engage with the system. What would she get? The then Government’s promise was to make that better, but the fundamentals remained.
If demand is so much bigger than supply, this is what we will get. With the best will in the world, local authorities will end up being defensive and saying no as a matter of course, and will give way only when they are forced to. Am I going on too long, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Graham Stuart
For years, I have fought for a fairer distribution of SEND funding, and for years, I have got nowhere, as successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—have lacked the courage to rebalance the system. I hope Labour will not lack that courage again. I do not pretend to have all the answers to this problem, but I know that we must work out what fairness looks like and the minimum per-pupil cost required for SEND support, and commit to meeting that basic need, if not immediately, then at least over time.
This Government need to be prepared to take from those above the baseline and give to those below. Would they be prepared to do that? No previous Government have been, but perhaps this one will. If not, we must find some other way. We could identify, through a mapping exercise, those who have been left behind, and we could say as a matter of principle that whenever there is an above-inflation increase in the Budget—such as the £760 million that the Chancellor came up with in the spending review yesterday—it will always be used first and foremost to lift up those below the line, while doing nothing to cause a below-inflation increase for those who are above the line.
Even if the Minister agrees with that idea, there will still be crisis management. How do we begin to tackle systemic inequality? Above all, it is vital that we revisit the high needs national funding formula, because it does not sufficiently account for regional cost differences, or for the genuine cost of delivering services in dispersed or under-served areas. The formula must reflect both complexity of need and the geography of the area in which that need arises. It needs to account for the added cost of providing services in rural areas. It is vital, too, that the formula moves away from the historical spend factor—the part of the formula that bases current funding on what a local authority spent on SEND provision in the 2018-19 financial year, and how it administratively described that spend. The formula means that a large section of funding is determined by pre-covid demand for SEND services, despite a post-pandemic spike.
The Government have stated their intention to remove that factor, but progress has been painfully slow. Every year that we fail to act, we condemn another group of children with complex needs to struggling without the support that they deserve. The issue is not simply how much money is available; it is also how accessible and responsive the system is. Families are forced into adversarial processes, schools are burdened with bureaucracy, and children are too often treated as numbers on a spreadsheet, rather than individuals with potential. We need a system that is focused on early intervention, not crisis management.
I am here not simply to raise a problem, but to call for action. That action would ensure a fairer, more transparent funding formula that reflects real-world costs across the country, accounting for rurality and discounting historical spend. It would establish a clear baseline per-pupil cost for delivering effective SEND support, and ensure that every local authority was brought up to that level—if not quickly, then at least over time. It would create better accountability mechanisms, so that areas that are underperforming on delivering SEND provision can be supported and, where necessary, challenged. At the very least, I ask that the Government recognise the injustice of the system and the inequality that it produces.
Those are not radical asks; they are practical, deliverable reforms that would make a meaningful difference for my constituents in Beverley and Holderness—and, I believe and hope, across the rest of the country. We have a duty as parliamentarians to ensure that every child, regardless of background, diagnosis, or postcode, has the support that they need to thrive. The disparities in SEND funding undermine that duty. If we believe in a truly inclusive education system, we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the structural inequities built into the funding model. We owe it to our constituents, our schools and, most importantly, the children to fix this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform Members that even with an immediate three-minute time limit, I will still not be able to get everyone in.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. This issue affects families in Huddersfield and across the country. I recently met SEND parents from Huddersfield to hear their experiences of the system. They are trying to do the right thing, and to get the right support for their children, but too often the system works against them. They told me that the system is difficult to navigate, especially the process of gaining an EHCP and any subsequent appeals processes. I also heard from parents who were struggling to access home-to-education transport, or who were not able to get their children into school due to poor mental health or it being the incorrect educational settings.
These stories are not one-offs. This is happening to too many families across the country, and it is clear that something has to change. I welcome the work of local support services, such as Kirklees Information, Advice and Support Service, which offers free and impartial advice, but it is dealing with a growing number of inquiries. In Huddersfield, we see growing demand for specialist support, but the funding is not keeping pace with that demand. Local services are stretched, schools are under pressure, and families are left to navigate a complex and often frustrating system.
Last week, I visited the fantastic Southgate school, a specialist school for children with complex special educational needs. I spent time with its amazing pupils and teaching staff. The teaching and support staff are passionate about their work, but they spoke to me about the increasing complexities that they are dealing with, and their struggle to access all the emotional and mental health support that they need for their pupils. The transition to post-16 support is a particular issue. They also asked me to raise the need to look again at the pay scale for support staff, who are valued members of the team. The issue of pay is impacting retention.
As the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has said, there is a postcode lottery. Whether a child gets the help that they need often depends on local resources, not their actual needs. We need to take into account wider need, deprivation and the complexity of children’s circumstances. I welcome the Government’s recent moves to improve SEND provision. They include: injecting an additional £1 billion into services; investing £740 million in adapting classrooms and building specialist facilities; and restructuring the Department for Education to put SEND at its heart. Local authorities like Kirklees council need the tools and resources to respond properly to the challenges. Without a sustainable funding formula, local authorities will struggle to provide timely solutions.
Schools want to do the right thing, as do councils, but they are often forced to make impossible choices, and that leaves families to pick up the pieces. We need a long-term plan that gives certainty to local areas and puts the voices of parents, carers and children at the heart of decision making.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate, and for his work on this issue. According to the latest figures, there are around 1.7 million school pupils in England with identified special educational needs. That equates to 18% of all pupils. Of those pupils with identified SEN, around 1.2 million receive SEN support, and around 400,000 have EHCPs.
In Huntingdon, the schools that I represent have expressed many concerns about the whole SEND system, and funding consistently underlies many of the issues that they face. Schools pay the first £6,000 towards meeting the outcomes of an education, health and care plan. The rest of the funding is topped up by the local authority. Often the funding provided does not cover the cost that the school incurs in supporting children with needs. I urge the Government to address that as a matter of urgency, as this is stopping schools from providing help to children suspected of requiring SEND support. I thank Yasmine Trace, the headteacher of Sawtry infant school, and Jo Dyke, the school’s SEND co-ordinator, for highlighting this matter. I know that they speak on behalf of other schools in Huntingdon, and across the country.
The unacceptably long wait to obtain an EHCP in Huntingdon—one child at Wheatfields primary school waited 62 weeks for a draft—has led many desperate parents to seek to fund them themselves. The cost of a private educational psychologist’s assessment in Huntingdon varies, depending on the services required and the provider, but it might be in the range of £900 for a full assessment, or £450 for an assessment of an under-three. For example, a full assessment could be £775 with a £400 deposit, and one provider offers an assessment for £900 with a £400 deposit. These figures are a significant barrier for most families that I represent. It is yet another burden for parents, and yet another reason why we need more support on offer.
The Government have hinted at sweeping changes to the EHCP system, and I would welcome further detail and clarity for the many parents, carers and teachers in Huntingdon who are uncertain about what these changes will mean. There is a fear among parents that the rug will be pulled from under their feet. I would welcome it if the Minister could confirm the ongoing support for EHCPs going forward.
To conclude, I want all children to get the education, care and support that they need. There are a growing number of children with SEND, and we must adapt to ensure that they are catered for and do not fall by the wayside. I would welcome plans from the Government on how they will support schools in meeting the costs of EHCPs—or of whatever they are replaced with. I wish to hear that parents will be supported throughout the process, and that the Government will not force parents down expensive routes, which most of them cannot afford, to ensure that their children get the education and support that they need.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). As it has for many Members, this issue has become a quiet emergency in my constituency; Hertfordshire faces many of the challenges with the funding and delivery of SEND provision that other parts of the country are grappling with.
SEND support should be a lifeline that enables a child to reach their potential, regardless of their diagnosis or circumstances. In Hertfordshire, the system is creaking. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission have said that there are “widespread and systematic failings”, and too many families are losing out as a result.
I have raised a number of stories in the past of constituents who are dealing with this issue. Today I bring to the House the story of my constituent Sarah, who recently told me about her daughter Grace. Grace suffers from avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, alongside autism and dyslexia. After a long and traumatic journey through the NHS, made harder by the lack of a national care pathway for ARFID, Grace spent six weeks at Watford general hospital and a further nine weeks at a mental health unit in Great Ormond Street. Her condition has thankfully stabilised, but her recovery remains fragile. Now her mother Sarah is facing the daunting challenge of securing an appropriate education. She is applying for an EHCP and has requested a place in a specialist setting that would meet Grace’s needs, but like many schools it is oversubscribed.
A mainstream environment, crowded and overwhelming, would simply be unworkable for Grace, whose previous experiences in school have left long-lasting trauma. Sarah is even considering moving countries in search of suitable provision. This is not an isolated case. Families in Hertfordshire are telling us time and again that the system is failing the children who sit in these so-called grey areas—children who require more than mainstream education can offer but who do not meet the thresholds for the few specialist placements available. Hertfordshire is ranked 148th out of 150 local authorities in per-head high-needs funding. Just 7.5% of our local education budget goes to SEND, well below the national average of 11.5%. We are also facing a projected £30 million deficit in the SEND budget this year.
I finish by thanking Ministers for their engagement on this issue, and for meeting me and other Hertfordshire Labour MPs. I know that the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) have also been diligently raising these issues. I am glad that the Government are now looking at the national funding formula and how it might be revised, which I hope will mean that Hertfordshire ends up with more support. I congratulate the Government on their pledge to invest an additional £1 billion into high-needs funding, and I look forward to seeing how this benefits all our children.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Hampshire is a county that falls into the f40 group, which are areas that receive some of the lowest per-pupil funding in the country. This disparity is hitting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities the hardest. The cumulative deficit in Hampshire for the dedicated schools grant now sits at £86.1 million. That is not just a number on a spreadsheet but a daily reality in schools across my constituency.
Despite having to find the first £6,000 of funding for every EHCP, schools in North East Hampshire, as with elsewhere, are bending over backwards to do everything they can to support these pupils. A headteacher in my constituency recently explained to me that their budgets this year are so tight, and they have made every efficiency that they can, that they will be forced to reduce the amount of support for the children who do not have an EHCP but who do have additional needs. What is the sense in that, when we know that early intervention leads to better outcomes and lower costs?
Before being elected to the House, I ran a charity for young people with Down’s syndrome and their families. We saw at first hand the impact that early intervention can make in building the fundamental skills for life that many of us take for granted—walking, talking and participating in society. Children with Down’s syndrome will always need an EHCP, yet the families still have to go through a laborious process.
Many children need a bit of extra help at various points without an EHCP, yet the funding formula also works against them because schools cannot afford to fund the support. As Lily’s mum explained after Lily was denied an EHCP,
“The emotional and financial toll is huge, made worse by constant pushback and denial. There’s endless talk of SEND reform, but what about the children like Lily who need help now? Every delay is another failed day, risking long-term harm.”
I welcome the investments in education and training outlined by the Chancellor in yesterday’s spending review, but it is not just schools’ walls that are crumbling; the systems within the buildings need just as much care, investment and resource. One headteacher said to me:
“Of course teachers want to be paid fairly, but that’s not why so many are leaving the profession. We want better funding for the schools, for the kids.”
I conclude not with the numbers but with a quote from Olivia’s mum, a constituent of mine. Olivia is in her 16th month without appropriate educational provision. Her mum said:
“I am increasingly fearful for her future. How can she be expected to participate fully in society—to reach her potential, to build independence, to thrive—if she is denied even the most basic right to an education?”
The national funding formula must be reassessed and made fit for the future.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Over the past decade we have seen a 140% increase in the number of children identified as requiring an education, health and care plan. Today we have nearly 2 million pupils in England who are identified as having special educational needs. Unfortunately, the rise in demand has not been matched by a corresponding increase in funding. As of October last year, the Department for Education projected a cumulative deficit of £4.6 billion in the dedicated schools grant by the end of 2025-26, alongside a £3.4 billion gap by 2027-28 between high-needs costs and current funding levels. Our children have for too long been let down by previous Governments, and we have had 14 years of Conservative austerity. We must urgently re-examine the structure and long-term sustainability of our SEND provision.
In my constituency, the pressure is all too evident. Nearly 9,000 pupils are currently receiving either special educational needs support or have an EHCP—around 18% of the total pupil population. If we look at the data more closely, a stark pattern emerges. There is a clear correlation between the level of special educational needs and the index of multiple deprivation, which means that children in our most deprived areas are significantly more likely to require additional support than their peers living in more affluent neighbourhoods. This is not just a matter of education but a matter of social justice. We must invest in early years intervention and deliver a holistic programme of support.
Wolverhampton West is home to five state-funded special schools: Tettenhall Wood school, Broadmeadow special school, Penn Fields school, Penn Hall school—close to where I live—and Pine Green Academy. I am proud of all of them, as they have dedicated staff and specialists educating over 650 pupils. However, even with the tireless efforts of our dedicated school staff, our state special schools are under strain and operating beyond capacity.
I am proud that this Government have put forward £740 million for 10,000 new SEND places, and spending review documents reveal that the Government will spend £547 million in 2026-27 and £213 million in 2027-28.
Graham Stuart
Perhaps my question could go through the hon. Member to the Minister if he does not know the answer. The £740 million is very welcome, but as he says it is frontloaded in one year and then halves the following year, with no indication of where it is going thereafter. Although it may be a welcome short-term intervention, how is it part of a sustainable effort to improve SEN?
Warinder Juss
My point is that we have not had sufficient funding to provide our special educational needs children with the support they require. The National Audit Office has warned that without significant change, the current system is financially unsustainable.
The evidence is damning. Since 2019, we have seen no consistent improvement in outcomes for children with SEND. We must, therefore, take bold, decisive steps to reform our SEND system to ensure that every child, irrespective of their needs or background, receives the proper support they rightly deserve. Only then can we say that we have removed the barriers to opportunity.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Before I start my speech, I acknowledge the awful tragedy in India. I am aware of my own constituents being directly affected by it, so my thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate. I have spoken many times about education in this place, including about my own experience. As a former governor of a school for autistic pupils, I have always been passionate about ensuring that our children and young ones can fulfil their full potential.
Earlier this week, I was lucky enough to visit one of my SEND schools, Breakspeare school in Abbot’s Langley, which is absolutely life-changing not just for the children that it supports and educates, but for the families and the wider network associated with those young, brilliant individuals. I have two other such schools in my constituency, Colnbrook school and Garston Manor school, but I want to focus my comments on Breakspeare.
Breakspeare hopes to move to a different site in Croxley in my constituency. There has been a change of administration at Hertfordshire county council, but I know from the plans of the previous Conservative administration that funding would have been put in place for that new school, because the current one does not have the capacity to meet the demand associated with it, not just in South West Hertfordshire but in the wider area. The school supports predominantly Hertfordshire children, but also those from Buckinghamshire and London. I am grateful that two fellow Hertfordshire MPs from across parties—the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins)—are in their places, acknowledging that SEND remains an apolitical but very important issue for all our residents. Today, I urge the county council to do all it can to ensure that that school breaks ground as soon as possible. The current location is not fit for purpose, not just because it is an old building that was not built for SEND provision, but because the significant demand for such provision in Hertfordshire means that it will quickly be out of date and not able to accommodate sufficient student numbers.
I hope that the Minister will provide not just additional support, but—going back to my right hon. Friend’s earlier suggestion—fair funding for those areas that really need it. There is a perception that Hertfordshire is an affluent county, but as someone who has not always been based there, I know it is still a significant concern for my residents that across Hertfordshire, we do not receive the average provision that other counties benefit from. If the Minister was willing and able to speak to Treasury colleagues, I am sure she would get cross-party support in her long-overdue fight to right this wrong. We all want to ensure that children in our communities do better and fulfil their potential.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Decisions on SEND funding in this Parliament directly affect the availability of resources for additional support needs education in Scotland. One of the best experiences of my career was working with the pupils, parents and teachers at the Royal Blind school in Edinburgh when I was at the charity Sight Scotland. There we created a happy and supportive environment to help blind and partially sighted pupils to reach their goals in education, and to gain the vital life skills they need to manage their visual impairments throughout their lives.
Such support should be available in every school—in every mainstream setting—but it simply is not. That is because the presumption of mainstreaming policy in Scotland has not been anything like adequately resourced. In February of this year, Audit Scotland concluded that the Scottish Government and councils must
“fundamentally evaluate how education is funded, staffed and assessed to support all pupils”,
including those with additional support needs,
“to reach their full potential.”
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—we very much welcome his securing the debate—has mentioned the disparities in funding between local authorities. That is an issue in Scotland as well. Repeated poor funding settlements from Ministers for our councils have resulted in a number of local authorities cutting additional support needs budgets again and again. The impact on pupils, parents and local charities has been dramatic and, frankly, intolerable. The number of pupils who need such support has gone up by 32% since 2019, but the number of specialist teachers has increased by just 2%.
Sight Scotland and RNIB Scotland have reported falling numbers of specialist teachers for visual impairment. The National Deaf Children’s Society in Scotland reports a 40% decrease in the number of specialist teachers for the deaf. The brilliant charity Autism Rocks, which is based in Buckhaven in my constituency but supports families throughout Scotland, told me that in one school, the number of support staff has been cut from nine to four. I have seen the huge difference that specialist educational support can make for disabled young people. Specialist teachers give pupils the time and skills they need to have a level playing field in the curriculum. The brilliant Stepping Up programme run by Enable, another charity that I have worked with, helps pupils to manage that difficult transition from school to further education or work.
Because of the actions of this Government, we are finally seeing increases in funding for SEND, and therefore in Scotland for additional support needs, but for two decades SNP Ministers have presided over a crisis in additional support needs provision in Scotland. It is children, families and staff who are suffering as a result—a sorry decline in a Scottish education system of which we were so proud for so long. That is why we urgently need a new direction in Scotland’s schools to ensure that all our children have the support that they need—that is their right—to achieve their full potential.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for setting the scene for us all incredibly well. I am going to give a Presbyterian sermon; for those who do not know what that is, it comes in three parts.
First, some children thrive academically and others practically. Some brains think in one way and others in different ways. We need all of them for a functioning society. We need mechanics as well as doctors; we need plasterers as much as farmers. It takes all sorts, and we need to train children not to fit into a standard box, but to find the box that fits them. That is becoming increasingly difficult for teachers to manage when the range of children is so wide and the pressure is so extensive.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that under the current model, families must first endure an unnecessarily prolonged, complex and emotionally draining diagnostic process before resources finally begin to trickle in. That is a reactive approach, which not only delays the sense of support but undermines the principle of educational equality and inclusion. Does he agree that we must recalibrate the system so that diagnostic services are prioritised, adequately funded and made accessible locally for every family in need?
Jim Shannon
The Minister is listening, and I am sure she will respond positively to the hon. Lady when the time comes.
SEN is not about writing off a child’s ability, but about ensuring that they find their place in the system in order to achieve their potential.
The second part of my Presbyterian sermon is about the stats for Northern Ireland. I know they are not the Minister’s responsibility, but I will give some figures and talk about a solution that I hope might be helpful. In Northern Ireland, SEN costs £65 million a year, but that figure is about 14% less than what is needed this year. The number of children with special educational needs has risen since 2017 from some 18,000 to some 27,000. In the same period, the number of children enrolled in special schools increased by some 25%. Funding is not meeting need, and we must look at other ways of doing that. The Department of Education in Northern Ireland is looking at units attached to mainstream schools, which provide a best-of-both-worlds approach. I hope that that solution can be of some help. The Department is looking at how well that can enable children to be a part of mainstream and better equipped to move forward.
The units provide additional specialist facilities on a mainstream school site for pupils with an EHC plan. They focus on specific needs such as speech, language, communication or autism. The classes are smaller, and there are more teachers to help each student. The teachers are trained to work with pupils in the designated area of need, the classrooms are adapted to suit pupils’ needs and the pupils spend a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 100% of their teaching and learning time in the unit, joining mainstream peers’ classes when appropriate.
That is one of the solutions that Northern Ireland Education Ministers and education authorities have come up with to try to address the issue when funding is lower. I am conscious of time, so I conclude by saying that perhaps that unit approach is the way forward. I hope that there will be buy-in from staff throughout the United Kingdom. The goal is a UK-wide education system that is fit for all and accessible for all needs. The pressure is great, but so too is the reward in teaching, and we need to find a way to get the greatest reward for our teachers, classroom assistants and all who are involved in school life. That can only come with appropriate Government support, which I know the Minister is always ready and willing to give.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
For far too long, families across my county of Staffordshire, and indeed across the country, have been failed by the very system that was meant to support them. The breadth and depth of the crisis in SEND provision is such that this has to be one of the most, if not the most, frequently debated topics since the general election. Since becoming an MP, I have spoken with dozens of parents who are forced to travel long distances, often across county borders, just to get their child the support to which they are legally entitled.
Recently, my team helped a family who had been waiting nine months to get into the school of their choice; others have been waiting for years. I have heard stories of poor communication, of documents being illegible to parents, who feel like outsiders navigating a system designed to exclude them, and of families having to repeat their stories multiple times due to layers and layers of decision making.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
My constituency of Ribble Valley sits under Lancashire county council, which recently received a damning Ofsted report for its SEND provision. One parent, Selina Shaw, told me that her son Monty lost two years of education while the council spent more than £146,000 on a school he never attended, as the council did not seem to understand that that school could not meet his needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and local authorities must listen seriously to the voice of the child and to parents to improve SEND provision and must stop wasting precious resources in the immediate term, as well as providing the long-term financial improvements that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) proposes?
Josh Newbury
I am sorry to hear about Monty’s story and I fear that we will hear stories like his from Members across the House in this debate. It is a perfect, but shocking, example of how the system is so broken that we are wasting huge amounts of resources. Money is leaking out of a system that is already inadequately funded. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. It is awful that we are in such a situation.
Children, particularly those with high needs, are having to wake up before dawn and travel for over an hour, finding themselves exhausted when they reach school. That is not choice; that is a scandal. It is not just the children with the most acute needs who are suffering; many children and young people could thrive with targeted, mid-level support if only it were available. The number of children with education, health and care plans has exploded since 2015, in reflection of a genuine increase in need and greater recognition of mental health issues and neurodivergence. Yet funding has not kept pace, resulting in a deficit of around £33 billion in high needs budgets within local authorities.
I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that the current SEND system is not fit for purpose and the recent commitment of £740 million to deliver 10,000 new SEND places, particularly in mainstream schools where specialist units can offer much-needed support closer to home. Following yesterday’s spending review, I look forward to the schools White Paper that will come out in the autumn, with details of the Government’s approach to reforming the SEND system.
We must ensure that the money goes where it is truly needed. I share the frustration of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), as Staffordshire is also chronically disadvantaged by the outdated funding formula, with specialist schools in my constituency receiving £8,000 per pupil less not than Camden but than the national average. A fair, needs-based funding system must reflect the actual costs of specialist provision, not assumptions or averages.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
That is partly about the specification of need and the quantification of how we meet it. Government can be helpful in that. I first took an interest in the matter as a county councillor more than 30 years ago and then as a shadow Schools Minister more recently—some 20 years ago. The Government can provide support through guidance. Guidance can get right the specification of need, and some of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has described can be addressed.
Josh Newbury
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his expertise and long experience to the debate. I am sure that that message has been heard by the Minister on the Front Bench and that she will look into it.
We must recognise that every child’s needs are different. Reforms must deliver on three major fronts: early intervention, so children get support before problems escalate and not after they have already struggled for years; inclusive schools, with proper funding for specialist units and trained staff in every community, not just in a lucky few; and fair access to transport, because no child should be denied education due to postcode lotteries or long, exhausting journeys.
Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to highlight the number of young people with SEND who go into employment later in life. In Staffordshire, only 2.1% of adults with learning difficulties were in paid employment in 2019-20, compared with an average of 5.4% for all English regions.
I am proud to support the Government’s investment for children with additional needs, but families in Cannock Chase now need to see change on the ground: to see parents and children listened to, not dismissed, and to see them respected, not exhausted. We cannot build the fairer, more inclusive country that we all want to see while SEND families are left fighting for support.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for bringing forward the debate, and I appreciated his speech. I also appreciate the interest of everybody in the Chamber in this matter. That stems from our experiences on the doorstep, where we have met far too many parents going through hell. We see a mix of determination, frustration, helplessness and betrayal. They look at me and at each hon. Member and say, “What are you going to do about it?” We are not doing enough, and their comments motivated each of us to be here today to do what we can.
Primary schools in my constituency—just dealing with the As, we have Alvescot, Aston and Appleton—do not have the spaces and the provision to provide for their children and the SEND needs that are going through the roof. In the secondary schools, it is the same story. We have no high needs provision in the constituency, which means that lots of children are being taxied God knows where, far too far away, on a daily basis, which is terrible for the kids and terrible for the whole system for obvious reasons, economic and otherwise. We are desperately trying to find routes through that and to find solutions.
In Oxfordshire, we are headed for a £100-million high needs block accumulated deficit this year, which is obviously completely unsustainable. That is just one county, and I am sure that it is repeated across all our counties. To quote the chair of the County Councils Network, we are
“nine months away from a financial cliff edge when these multi-billion deficits are placed onto councils’ budget books, potentially rendering half of England’s county and unitary councils insolvent overnight.”
Oxfordshire county council asks for three things, and I think many of us will agree with them. The statutory override, which will run out in nine months’ time, needs to be extended. Frankly, extending it for one year makes little sense; let us have some perspective and length on this. We need a write-down or a write-off of the high needs block deficits across local authorities. We need to have some borrowing potential for local authorities. That needs to be explored, so that they have flexibility to settle any remaining deficits over an affordable period.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I will speak about the deepening funding crisis, and the crisis in general, for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including the failure of our national curriculum to meet the needs of all learners.
Since the curriculum reforms introduced in 2012, we have seen a return to a rigid, academic model of education—one that might have suited a mid-century grammar school but fails to deliver for a modern comprehensive system. The curriculum is simply inaccessible for at least a third of our pupils, both those with SEND and many others who thrive with practical, creative or vocational learning. Too many children are being told, implicitly or explicitly, that their job is to, “Just get a pass and forget about it.” That is not a curriculum that inspires or includes, it is not a curriculum that recognises or nurtures diverse talents, and it is certainly not a curriculum fit for the 21st century. It also ignores the cost of adequately educating children with special educational needs. This narrow focus does more than limit opportunity; it damages self-esteem, confidence and emotional wellbeing. It restricts the gifts and potential of our young people, particularly those who already face the greatest barriers.
Critically, schools have lost the flexibility they once had to tailor education to the needs of their pupils. They are now judged on a narrow set of outcomes, forcing a one-size-fits-all model on to a hugely diverse student body—again, a cut-price way to deliver our education system. That has consequences. We can draw a direct line from the rigidity of the curriculum to the crisis in school attendance, and from there to the rise in NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—who are vulnerable to exploitation or even to entering the youth justice system as they are exploited by organised crime. Too many young people with SEND are being failed by a system that offers them no real route to thrive, and when school stops being a protective factor, the risks grow.
That situation is being made worse by how SEND funding is distributed. Local authorities are under incredible pressure, with funding that simply does not reflect the growing complexity and volume of need. We see huge disparities between areas, and often between schools within the same local authority, where children miss out on vital support not because their needs are different, but because of postcode lotteries in funding.
Fair and adequate funding is a matter of educational justice. If we are serious about inclusion, we cannot continue to under-resource the very system meant to deliver it. We urgently need to reimagine our education system not as a funnel toward academic exams alone, but as a foundation for every child’s success in every form it might take. I hope the Minister will listen to the parents, carers, teachers and young people themselves calling for change.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
SEND provision in our schools is in a state of deep and growing crisis. In my area, West Sussex county council is already struggling with a £130 million SEND deficit this year—a figure likely to rise to £224 million by next year. That huge figure is one of the worst in the country, but what is truly concerning is that so much overspend has not even bought us a satisfactory service. Complaints from parents and schools have filled my postbag ever since the election.
Only half of EHCPs nationally are issued within the legal 20-week timeframe. In West Sussex it is even worse: just 12% now meet the deadline—and that is after a big push to get the waiting list down. It is hard to believe that slow processing is not a tactic. An EHCP gives parents the right to access educational support, but that support does not actually exist, so the local authority’s solution is to create deliberate bottlenecks in the system so that many families will never get all the way through. That is particularly unfair at the nursery level, because educational psychologist assessments can take so long that the child is all the way through school before they get one.
More and more families are forced to go to appeal—tribunal appeals are up 53% in one year—but the fact that councils lose almost all those cases tells us that things should never have got that far in the first place. In effect, that discriminates heavily against parents who, for whatever reason, are less able to fight their case all the way through the system.
I have met many parents with SEN children and the emotional cost is enormous. Sometimes I feel like I myself need counselling afterwards. Parents have to watch their children drift away from mainstream schooling when early intervention might have saved them. Families are breaking up under the strain. One couple told me that a third of marriages do not survive the experience.
Of course, the pressure on staff is no less severe. Our teachers—particularly SENCOs—are exhausted, unsupported and leaving the profession. One Horsham SENCO told me:
“We are seasoned professionals, but we are at breaking point.”
Mainstream schools face manifest injustices. One school told me about a child who was refused by a specialist school because their needs were said to be too great. What happened? The child was allocated to an ordinary mainstream primary without any specialist support.
I realise that the demands on the Government’s budget are endless, but I hope that the current review will lead to swift action. Any further delay means we risk losing all the educational progress that teachers have worked so hard to deliver over the past 10 years.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing the debate.
It is clear that the special educational needs and disabilities system is overstretched, underfunded and increasingly out of step with the reality faced by children, parents and schools. I will share with colleagues two local examples from Bolton West that illustrate the strife that the current system has caused parents.
One mother, Jo, wrote to me after I visited her children’s school in Lostock. Her children are both bright, engaged, full of potential and autistic, but they are all too often excluded from the very activities designed to inspire them. When the school organised a high-profile enrichment trip to London, her eldest was not chosen. It is not the fault of the school, which is operating under challenging financial constraints; rather, it is a symptom of a system that fails to see autistic children as leaders or participants in national life. After all, as Jo reminded me, representation is not just about being present, but about being expected.
Another mother, Victoria, wrote to me distraught about the possibility that education, health and care plans may soon be restricted to children in specialist settings. Her 10-year-old son, who has complex needs, is in mainstream education. He cannot learn without tailored support. His EHCP is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. Without it, he would not be in school; without it, he would not be learning.
In Bolton alone, more than 9,000 young people have identified SEND needs, and over 20% of them rely on EHCPs, so I welcome the £1 billion increase to SEND and alternative provision that was announced for 2025-26 in the autumn statement last year. I commend the Chancellor for her announcement in yesterday’s spending review of another £547 million in 2026-27 and £213 million in 2027-28 to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system, to make it more inclusive and to improve outcomes ahead of publishing a schools White Paper in the autumn.
However, can the Minister reassure my constituents and me that, whatever happens with EHCPs, parents and teachers will be closely consulted to ensure the best outcomes are secured for children across my constituency and up and down the country? I am very concerned about the potential knock-on effect of any reforms for teaching assistants. From visiting schools, I know how vital their role is in ensuring children can maximise the time they have to learn in classrooms, whether it be at Ladybridge primary, the Gates in Westhoughton or Beaumont Primary, to name but a few.
I know from speaking to a local head just this morning that the current situation simply cannot go on. She told me that headteachers were having to go cap in hand outside the school to seek alternative funding and that she has never found it so tough in seven years of being a head. We owe it to all our children to give them the ability to realise their ambitions, so I hope the Minister can address my concerns and those of my constituents.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate. Given the limited time that has been allocated, I will speak about the state of SEND in my area and then suggest how the Government can address some of these challenges.
The Dewsbury and Batley constituency sits in the authority of Kirklees, which ranks very low in terms of funding per child in the high-needs block of the dedicated schools grant. According to recent reports, Kirklees is the second worst funded council for high-needs funding per capita. Kirklees has nearly 9,600 disabled children and young people between the ages of nought and 24. Since 2016, there has been a real-terms spending cut of £717,000 on services for disabled children in Kirklees. Given the lack of funding, it is not surprising that in June 2022 a joint SEND inspection by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission reported two priority areas of action, which, as far as I am aware, are still unresolved. Without the necessary funding, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the council to address these challenges.
In Kirklees, one in eight EHCPs were processed within the 20-week legal timescale, compared with the national average of 50%, making it one of the worst rates nationally. Kirklees is part of the Department for Education’s safety valve programme, which helps local authorities with their SEND deficits, but that may pressure councils to limit EHCPs, adding barriers for families seeking essential support for their children.
I completely agree that the Government’s plans for major SEND reforms are necessary and overdue. However, current rumours and media leaks have alarmed many families. The Disabled Children’s Partnership, which represents 130-plus charities, royal colleges and parent groups and supports early intervention, has warned that reforms must not disrupt current placements or support arrangements; they must not remove EHCPs for children with complex or unmet needs; they must not abolish the SEND tribunal, which is a vital legal safeguard; they must not remove support after the age of 18 before young people are ready; and they must not redefine SEND in ways that narrow eligibility.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for bringing this important issue to the Chamber for a full and thorough discussion.
I want to highlight a few issues in Suffolk Coastal. I recently had quite a large conversation with many parents in my constituency. Nearly 100 parents filled in my survey and told me the extent of the issues they are facing as a consequence of battling with special educational needs provision. Some 60% of those who filled in the survey told me that they have had to withhold their children from school for up to a year because their children could not access education in a setting that was right for them. Nearly a quarter of those children have been off school for over a year.
It will not surprise anyone in this Chamber or any parents listening to the debate that many families are struggling with the mental health consequences of this crisis. One in two parents told me that they are battling with mental health issues as a consequence of their battles with SEND provision. In many conversations that I have had across my constituency with schools, parents and young students, we have also explored some of the recommendations that could be brought forward, and I have spoken at length about that in the past. We have a dual badge in Suffolk: we are a member of f40 and also an area that is being let down regarding SEND. Our county council is effectively in special measures.
Sir John Hayes
That is the truth that dare not speak its name. It is often the most disadvantaged or poorly educated parents who struggle to navigate a complex system. Middle-class parents are at an advantage—let us face facts—but that is never really recognised, and it needs to be. Those people need support and guidance to navigate the system, and to get the education that their children rightly deserve.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, which is why I and so many Members are passionate about this issue. Those who cannot articulate or fight for themselves need people to stand up and fight for them.
In many discussions I have had, I have worked with my constituents and with schools to come up with six key recommendations that we think will be innovative. We know there is a funding issue, and I welcome the Government’s investment and commitment to that. However, we need to relook at how we deliver special educational needs. Education, care and health plans are just one part of the problem, but fixing those will not fix the situation that parents are facing.
A school in Saxmundham closed down last summer, because of the declining population in that area, two years after more than £1 million was spent on its SEND unit. It is a great facility whose footprint could facilitate primary and secondary education. I have been urging the Government to look at that— I have written to the Minister, and I will continue to urge the Government to look at that provision and take it forward.
We need a national conversation about SEND and about funding. I welcome Members from across the House talking about the need to bring the voices of parents and young students to that national conversation. We must hear from them why it is failing, and how adversarial the system has become.
Iqbal Mohamed
Statistics published today by the Government show that there are more than 482,000 children with ECHPs but 1.284 million children without ECHPs who require SEND support. Although the £750 million is welcome, does the hon. Member agree that it is a drop in the ocean and that the Government need to invest more?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Perhaps the hon. Member will agree with what I am about to say, which is that, yes, funding is part of the issue, but we need to look at the entire system to solve it at the scale that is needed.
In rural areas—the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness spoke about this at the beginning of the debate—the issues are different to those in urban areas. There are declining populations in many of my primary schools. One primary school has just 15 students and spare classrooms, because the population does not match the capacity. We have capacity within those schools. I have put forward a recommendation, which has been supported in principle by my county council, that where we have declining populations in rural areas, we could operate with a special educational needs unit alongside mainstream provision, acting separately but within the same infrastructure. That SEND unit could bid for separate funding, and have a separate, wider catchment area than the primary school.
What is incredibly exciting about that idea is that the provision does not need to stop in year 6. We know that small, cute primary schools with tiny populations have a huge challenge with students moving from year 6 into huge class sizes in secondary school in year 7. If we were to go ahead with the proposal, there is no reason why the SEND unit in a primary school could not hold students in years 7 and 8, enabling a much more gradual transition to a secondary school setting. That is something I have been pushing passionately. I have written a report about it, which I published in my constituency. I am having loads of conversations with my schools, and I will continue to have a conversation with the Government. I welcome everyone’s contributions today.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak on a matter so close to the hearts of parents, carers, teachers and pupils in Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and across West Sussex: the urgent need for equitable and sustainable funding for special educational needs and disabilities.
Since 2015, the number of EHCPs in West Sussex has risen dramatically, from 3,362 to 7,684 in 2024, an increase of 128%. That surge mirrors an England-wide trend, where the number of EHCPs has grown by over 70% since 2018. That equates to about 180,000 additional high-needs pupils. Local mainstream schools, like Bishop Tufnell and Edward Bryant, report being stretched to capacity. They rely on fundraising from charities merely to maintain basic SEN provision, while increasing staff shortages and rising national insurance costs exacerbate burnout. Nationally, high-needs spending has risen to roughly £11 billion, but with pupil numbers growing faster than funding, per pupil support has actually fallen by a third in real terms.
The Government have recognised that pressure. A capital investment of £740 million aims to support the creation of 10,000 additional SEND places, including in specialist units in mainstream schools, and a further £1 billion is being allocated to support 44,500 mainstream school placements by 2028 under the high-needs national funding formula. However, even with that funding, experts warn of a ticking time bomb, as councils, including West Sussex, face soaring deficits that could reach £5 billion by 2026. Until 2018-19, the council was in a surplus, but since then, the exponential rise in need has put immense pressure on the system.
I have asked the Leader of the House to facilitate a debate on a sustainable model for SEND funding that ensures that local authorities like West Sussex receive adequate per-head resources; that delivers timely funding adjustments as EHCP numbers grow; and that supports retention of specialist staff and inclusive practices in mainstream settings. I urge the House to commit to sustainable and future-proofed funding.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
As many right hon. and hon. Members have outlined, there is no doubt that there is a crisis in our SEND system in this country—a crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. However, funding is still too low to keep pace with the rate at which children are being diagnosed with SEND, and many families and teachers are struggling to get the help that children desperately need and deserve. Unfortunately, families in my constituency of South Dorset experience the same. According to figures set out earlier this year, 18% of pupils in South Dorset receive SEND support, roughly 5% more than the national average. That is why I want to increase the number of SEND places in special school settings.
We have three state-funded special schools locally, Harbour school, Westfield college and Wyvern academy, whose staff do a truly brilliant job delivering specialised and individualised support for every child. However, following conversations with mums and dads at the school gate and teachers in the classroom, I am all too aware that, put simply, there are more SEND pupils across South Dorset, primarily based in mainstream schools, than there are special SEND places in special school settings.
Warinder Juss
In 2023, the Department for Education said that demand for special school places nationally outstripped available places by at least 4,000, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need more special school places?
Lloyd Hatton
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and we really feel that in South Dorset. There are simply not the places needed to support every child with SEND. We urgently need the Government to move further, faster, to ensure that every child with SEND gets the education, and the school setting, that they deserve. I once again ask Ministers at the Department for Education to get the SEND school at the Osprey Quay site on Portland open—we waited for years for that to happen under the previous Government—and to finally rebuild the buildings at Dorset Studio school. If we can get those two projects over the line, we can really start to deal with the crisis in South Dorset.
Funding for a new SEND school was promised for so many years; that is what is most frustrating for parents in my constituency, particularly those living on Portland. In 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, they were promised a solution that did not come, and once again we are waiting. Parents on Portland need that school on the Osprey Quay site opened as soon as possible.
Every child, no matter their educational needs, should have the opportunity to do their best, but they can do that only in the right school, with the right support. I know that this Labour Government recognise that reality, which is why I look forward to hearing from the Department for Education on the future of those two schools in my constituency, and to hearing a little more from the Minister at the end of this debate.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Schools in my constituency are among the lowest-funded in the country, and there is a lack of resource for early intervention work before children get to the point of needing SEND support or an EHCP, which means that more children will need a higher level of intervention later. It is a vicious circle. The lack of money to act early means that more money must be transferred from the schools block to the high-needs block, reducing still further the funding for early intervention.
South Gloucestershire is one of the local authorities that entered into a safety-valve agreement with the previous Government. It faces a cliff edge when that agreement ends next April, and as yet there is no certainty about what comes next. A great deal of work has been done by the council and schools working in SEND clusters, but the deficit has continued to increase. The agreement was signed pre-covid—we all know about the impact that the pandemic had on demand for additional support—and as a result the targets in the agreement are completely unachievable. Safety-valve agreements have not worked. Will the Government write off those historical deficits and find a new fairer funding formula?
I support the Government’s focus on inclusion, early intervention and preventive support to make that possible for more children. However, we need to recognise that there are children and young people already in the system who did not get that support, and schools need the funding to support them now. One of the reasons for the historical deficit in south Gloucestershire is the lack of specialist places locally, which has resulted in high numbers of expensive out-of-area placements. Those are bad for children, who would be better off being educated in their local community, so that they did not face excessive travel or need a residential place, and they are bad for the school budget.
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member makes a really important point about early intervention. The current funding models respond only to high-level need and EHCPs, which leads to an over-reliance on costly EHCPs and new special school places. Does she agree that we should look to allocate a ringfenced proportion of the high-needs funding to early intervention in mainstream schools?
Claire Young
That is one approach, but we need to ensure that it does not take away from the high-needs approach. The point is that we have to fund both early intervention and the high-level needs that have resulted from the lack of early intervention.
The previous Government declined to fund an additional 200 special school placements when they signed the safety-valve agreement. When I met the Minister for School Standards, she did so too, saying that the focus is on providing places in the mainstream. Increased inclusion is a sound ongoing policy, but pupils cannot make the switch overnight. We need a fairer distribution of capital funding as well as revenue funding.
Another issue with SEND funding is the notional £6,000. To give one example, a headteacher locally told me that more than 60% of their allocation goes on the high number of children with EHCPs they have on roll, leaving less than 40% to support all the other children on the record of need. School funding does not recognise that there can be great disparities between communities and schools, even in the same local authority area. Some acquire a reputation for being good at supporting those with additional needs and suffer financial consequences, and some communities in an authority have greater need than others. The formula for distributing SEND funding and more general schools funding does not reflect that, and it means that schools in different parts of the country with similar cohorts are treated very differently.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
This is clearly a national crisis. Cornwall ranks 144th out of 151 local authorities for per-pupil SEND funding, and children with SEND needs in Cornwall get almost half the funding of those in Middlesbrough. Does my hon. Friend agree that this gross funding unfairness should be urgently addressed?
Claire Young
Absolutely. South Gloucestershire is in an even worse position, and I am sure all the authorities in the f40 group would agree.
Yesterday, I raised with the Prime Minister one of the impacts that lack of support for SEND has on families. He did not take up my request for a meeting, but I hope he will consider meeting me to discuss this aspect of the issue, and meeting charities that represent parents who are in this situation. Of course, the lack of support for children with special educational needs has many other impacts; I simply do not have time to go into all of them today.
We need overall SEND funding to reflect the level of need. We need more funding during the transition to greater inclusion, to reflect the fact that we will be supporting people with a high level of need, as well as funding early intervention. We need a national body for SEND to end the postcode lottery, and to fund the very high-need cases that cost over £25,000 a year, and schools need funding to be distributed in a way that reflects their needs, not some overall and potentially flawed perception by their local authority.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. This is an issue close to my heart. I used to be a school governor as well as a college governor, and I remember setting up—along with other teachers and professionals—a specific learning unit, as well as a general learning difficulty unit. Of course, having been a constituency MP for the past 15 years, this is an issue that I have dealt with many a time, and when I have been trying to assist families, I have noticed that they feel utterly exhausted, not only by their caring responsibility, but by a system that seems to place obstacles in their way.
My council, Bolton, has made real progress. Its “Belonging in Bolton” strategy is helping to create more local SEND places, and it was rightly praised in its most recent Ofsted and Care Quality Commission inspection. In the area covered by Salford city council, parts of which now come into my constituency—it now covers Walkden—the council has also been working really hard to improve provision for children with SEND, but of course, all these councils have limited resources. In Bolton alone, over 9,000 children have a SEND issue, an increase of 27% since 2015. One headteacher in my constituency recently told me that their school spends £333,000 a year on teaching assistants to support children with special needs, but it receives only £155,000 in education, health and care plan funding. That leaves a gap of £178,000 every single year, around 7% of the school’s total budget, which they have to find somewhere. That is before we factor in the costs of behaviour support, speech and language therapy, or educational psychologists.
We need a proper plan that would increase the outdated £6,000 top-up threshold; invest in local authority teams to ensure that EHC plans are issued on time, giving families the certainty they need; and target capital funding at where demand is greatest, including in Bolton South and Walkden, to make sure that children can get support closer to home. Children in Bolton South and Walkden need support, and that must not be like winning a lottery.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this vital debate. I would like to start with the words of Berkhamsted student Hermione:
“I believe, without a doubt, that the school system needs to change. But more than anything, it needs to change for SEN students—because right now, it is failing them…The system broke me down completely. Instead of supporting me, the system left me feeling isolated and overwhelmed.”
Last week, I met Hermione at Egerton-Rothesay school in Berkhamsted. She has complex needs, and has found solace in her new school after years of struggling. That is why, for her English oral exam, she was compelled to write a piece called “The school system needs to change: especially for SEN students”. She happened to send it to her headmaster on the day I visited. It is an eloquent piece about her experience, and I wish I had time to share it in its entirety. She concludes by saying:
“I know I’m lucky to have the support I do, but it’s still not enough. The system needs to change—not just for me, but for all the students still being let down, and for the future of education itself.”
She calls for improved teacher training, for a more flexible curriculum and assessments, for schools to listen to SEND students and for properly funded and staffed support. I would like to tell Hermione that Parliament is listening, and this debate will dive into why that proper funding is so vital and how it can be improved.
The Government must heed the call of parents and children to tackle this issue head on. The Public Accounts Committee reported in January that despite the 58% increase in the Department for Education’s high needs funding over the past decade, it has not kept pace with demand. The current funding model, which sees top-up funding for students requiring more than £6,000 a year of additional SEND support, has not been updated, even given the changes in real-term value. That is crippling local schools and authorities, with 38 unitary and county authorities having racked up debts exceeding £2 billion this year alone. That has resulted in high-needs spending being consistently higher than available funding by between £200 million and £800 million a year between 2018 and 2022.
Hertfordshire was given the worst rating for SEND provision under the previous Conservative Administration. The funding formula under the Conservatives meant that children in Hertfordshire have been burdened with the third-lowest per capita funding for high needs funding and far less than just next door in Buckinghamshire. A three-year-old in Hertfordshire with SEND needs would have to finish all their formal education before they would get equal funding to a similar child in Buckinghamshire. The new Government must stop this postcode lottery, as eloquently put forward by the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and ensure that those previously left behind get the support they need.
Kyle’s family in Markyate told me that the system treated them not as kids with hopes and dreams, but as just another name on a piece of paper. Jess in Tring made the difficult decision to remove their six-year-old from school to home-educate and told me that seeing their five-year-old struggling was “heartbreaking”. Those are not isolated cases; they reflect the story across constituencies up and down the country, the real consequences of underfunding and the postcode lottery of unfair distribution.
The Liberal Democrats have a clear plan to fix this broken system. We call on the Government: to establish a national SEND body to end this postcode lottery and to fully fund costs above £25,000 per annum, ensuring that children with complex needs receive the tailored support they require; to increase funding for local authorities to reduce the financial burden on schools after the Conservatives left local councils underfunded; to extend the profit cap from children’s social care to SEND; to provide cash towards the cost of EHCPs to tackle the disincentives creating this adversarial system; and, to reform that broken national funding formula.
This crisis cannot go on. Every child, no matter their needs, deserves the opportunity to succeed with the right support in place. The Government must urgently clarify their reform plans. SEND families deserve certainty, not to be drip-fed information about their children’s future. As Hermione says:
“To anyone who thinks, ‘The system works fine as it is’—fine for who? If it doesn’t work for all, then it doesn’t truly work.”
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow such excellent contributions from Members from all parts of the House in this important debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to the parents, the carers, the schools and all those who have battled tirelessly to secure funding for SEND students.
I was one of those SEND students who benefited from my parents tirelessly campaigning for me to have the disability support I needed in school. It has only taken me this long to finally say thank you. Such support plays a vital role in children’s long-term success. Members from all parts of the House have raised this issue today because they can see the merits in fighting for children’s chances, particularly in primary school, to increase their success overall.
We know that finding the right provision can be difficult and bureaucratic for children with SEND and their families. Securing the right assessment of a child’s needs, getting their education, health and care plan, and finding the right provision takes huge effort and far too long. Many parents who have come to me have been absolutely choked and suffocated by the system. Too often, children with SEND face a postcode lottery, with suitable provision too far from their home or, in the worst cases, no suitable provision at all.
According to the 2024 data, we now have 1.67 million children who have been identified as having SEND— 18.4% of all school pupils. We know that the number has grown significantly over the last few years, which is why the Conservatives opened 108 new specialist schools, committed to a further 92 and delivered over 60,000 new special needs school places. The growth in children with SEND is why getting the distribution of funding correct really does matter. We know that not enough of the funding is reaching schools and the children who need it the most. We know that as the number of children with SEND has increased, the deficit from the high-needs block has become financially unsustainable, as many Members have alluded to today. That is why we must confront the challenges facing local government when the statutory override ends in March 2026, and we would like to hear what assurances the Minister can give on how councils can address the deficit.
Sir John Hayes
As I expected, my hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling case. Will she also ask the Minister to address the issue of special needs not being static? Many needs are dynamic—children change when their needs change—and that dynamism needs to be built into the system so that flexible funding can follow need.
Joy Morrissey
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that excellent point. Many Members have raised this issue, and perhaps we can have another debate in Government time on how SEND funding can follow the student, rather than just having it allocated. The needs of a SEND student will change over time, which is why parents often change educational providers. Children may go into independent school settings and then come back to state settings, and parents are constantly battling the system. It is worth looking at whether we can have a model in which the funding follows the student.
Many parents have come to me, and I am sure to other Members, to ask for VAT not to be charged on independent school fees, because over 100,000 pupils with SEND who were being supported in that educational setting now have to go back into the state sector, which cannot cope with rising costs and the number of students entering the system. I ask the Government to urgently look at that and to U-turn on the policy of charging VAT on school fees, because SEND children are falling through the cracks as a result.
For SEND students in primary school, it is very important that they have educational support through teachers. Primary school teachers are some of the most important teachers. They changed my life and helped me cope with my disability, and I would not be here today if I had not had them. The Government claimed that they would recruit 6,500 more teachers, but we have now heard that they will not do so. The truth is that there are now 400 fewer teachers than there were a year ago. Promises have been made, but this promise seems to have been broken.
However, it is even worse than that. When it comes to SEND, primary schools play a vital role, but this Government have had to quietly drop primary school teachers from their promise to recruit 6,500 teachers, and I honestly want to know why that is. Primary schools are where children with hidden SEND will first present. If there is early intervention, the journey to provide them with the right support is much easier. Having that support yields high levels of return, but if it is not put in place in time, we see high levels of exclusion and ultimately see children disengage from education and learning.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that the problem begins even earlier? Nurseries receive no dedicated SEND funding, which means that essential early intervention is provided by schools and the funding is overstretched. That is neither sustainable nor fair for the children or for the schools trying to support them.
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Member makes a wonderful point about the fact that early intervention is underfunded, but such funding actually reaps huge benefits for students. I should declare that I worked at the Centre for Social Justice, where we looked at early intervention as one of the most important ways of turning around the lives of children. Especially for children with special educational needs, early diagnosis and early intervention can make all the difference in their not falling behind when they enter main education. It is rare that I support additional funding, but I do for early intervention because it is life-changing. The years during which we can change a child’s life are those from four to seven. It is such a small window during which we can erase trauma and help with any disability, but that will help them for the rest of their lives, so early intervention makes all the difference for such children in the long term.
I ask the Government to listen: to listen to the children, families and schools telling them that SEND funding is not making it to the children who need it; to listen to the local authorities that need clarity urgently on the future of high-needs blocks and the statutory override; to listen to the parents of children at independent schools who are being ripped from settings that work for them because of an Education Secretary who will not listen to the evidence that those schools are the right place for those students at this time; and to listen to the primary schools that are now short of teachers, but are trying to provide SEND support for these children at the most vital stage of their education. It is time for the Government to listen and to make the changes our children with SEND so desperately need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate on this important subject. I know he has a strong interest in special educational needs and disability, and I commend him for his 20 years of advocating for change. He spoke widely about many areas, but especially about distribution. I also thank the many Members across this Chamber for their passionate and sincere speeches, which all advocated for their constituents and the children they care about.
Among the many Members who have spoken, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) talked about the difficulties for parents navigating SEND. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke about the challenges involving EHCPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) gave some case studies, and like other Members mentioned these precious children and their experiences, which were all very vital and pertinent to this debate. I thank them for those case studies about Grace, Olivia, Hermione and others, which I really appreciate and acknowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) spoke about the Government investing in early years, and that is absolutely what we are doing.
I will seek to address as many as possible of the issues and challenges that have been raised and brought to my attention, but I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for his strong advocacy for SEN provision in his area, which has been noted. However, I will push back against the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who raised many issues to be addressed. I gently say to her that, given the past 14 years, we did not need to be in this position with SEND—we did not need to be here—and this Government have been left to fix the foundations. We do have a plan for change, and I will mention as many of the areas as I can.
The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and giving every child the best start in life. That means ensuring that all children and young people receive the right support to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives.
Janet Daby
I would like to make some progress before I begin to give way.
Members from across the House will be aware of the challenges facing the SEND system—a system that is difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate, and where outcomes for children are often poor. That has been mentioned by many Members. The Education Committee has undertaken its own inquiry aimed at solving the SEND crisis, which underscores the significant challenges we face. Improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. We want all children to receive the right support to succeed in their education, and to lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives. The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) quoted Hermione, who said that SEND needs to work for all, and I just wanted to acknowledge that.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She will be aware that the title of this debate, despite what it says on the screen, is “Distribution of SEND Funding”. I hope, therefore, that she will focus primarily on that particular technical point. The distribution of SEND funding across the country is, according to f40 and campaigners across the House, unfair, broken and needs to change. Is that the Government’s view and the Minister’s view? That is the first answer, and then we can turn to how it can best be fixed. The most important thing is to recognise whether it is broken or not. I feel it is unfair and broken, and I would like to hear the Minister say so, if she agrees.
Janet Daby
I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but he does need to allow me time to proceed. It would be wrong of me not to also respond to other Members from across the Chamber who have mentioned concerns with regard to the reason we are here.
Members across the House will be aware of the challenges facing the SEND system. Improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. As I said, we want all children to receive the right support. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings. We know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating, and that it supports all children and young people to achieve their goals alongside their peers.
These are complex issues that need a considered approach to deliver sustainable change, and we have already begun that work. We launched new training resources to support early years educators to meet emerging needs, and announced 1,000 further funded training places for early years special educational needs co-ordinators in the 2025-26 financial year, which will be targeted at settings in the most disadvantaged areas. We have extended the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools programme to support an additional 1,200 mainstream primary schools to better meet the needs of neurodiverse children in the financial year 2025-26. That investment builds on the success of the programme, which was delivered to over 1,650 primary schools last year. We have already established an expert advisory group for inclusion to improve the mainstream educational outcomes and experiences of those with SEND.
All that work forms part of the Government’s opportunity mission, which will break down the unfair link between background and opportunity. We will continue to work with the sector as essential and valued partners to deliver our shared mission and to respect parents’ trust. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned, parents need to be respected, not exhausted.
The Department is providing an increase of £1 billion for the high needs budget in England in the 2025-26 financial year. Total high needs funding for children and young people with complex SEND is over £12 billion for the year 2025-26. Returning to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, of that total, East Riding of Yorkshire council is being allocated over £42 million through the high needs funding block of the dedicated schools grant—an increase of £3.5 million on 2024-25. The high needs block is calculated using the high needs national funding formula. The NFF allocation is a 9.1% increase per head for the two to 18-year-old population on the equivalent 2024-25 NFF allocation.
I will turn to the many issues raised by other Members. We know that families face issues with education, health and care plans, and that even after fighting to secure the entitlement, support is not always delivered quickly enough. EHC plans should be issued within 20 weeks and are quality assured for a combination of statutory requirements, local authority frameworks and best practice guidelines, but the latest publication data showed that just half of new EHC plans were issued within the time limit in 2023. Where a local authority does not meet its duty on timeliness and quality of plans, we can take action that prioritises children’s needs and supports local areas to bring about rapid improvement.
This Government believe that a complex legal process should not be necessary to access good, early support for children and young people, which is why we need to focus on addressing the overall systemic issues to make SEND support easier to access. We are continuing to develop the ways in which we protect support for the children who will always need specialist placements and make accessing that support less bureaucratic and adversarial.
Mr Adnan Hussain
Does the Minister acknowledge that early support must be given to children when they are at nursery? If we identify those needs at that point, we could save money in the long run.
Janet Daby
The Government are very much committed to early intervention and prevention work.
Ben Obese-Jecty
It was strongly suggested the other day that the Government were going to look at changing EHCPs and possibly even scrapping them completely. Can the Minister give some reassurance to the House, and to constituents who may be watching this debate, that EHCPs will remain extant and will be worked on?
Janet Daby
As far as I am aware, EHC plans will continue.
We know that children’s earliest years make the biggest difference to their life chances. As I have already said, we believe in early intervention and recognise the importance of high-quality early years education and care, which can lead to better outcomes for children. Having access to a formal childcare setting allows children’s needs to be identified at the earliest opportunity, so that the appropriate support and intervention can be put in place to allow children with SEND to thrive.
Arrangements are in place to support children with SEND to access Government funding in early education, including funding for disability access and special educational needs inclusion and the high needs NFF allocations to support local authorities. We are reviewing early years SEND funding arrangements to assess how suitable the current arrangements are for supporting the needs of children with SEND.
The additional funding for schools of more than £4 billion a year over the next three years announced in the spending review will provide an above real-terms per-pupil increase in the core schools budget, taking per-pupil funding to its highest ever level and enabling us to transform the SEND system. We will improve support for children, stop parents having to fight for support and protect the support that is currently in place. Details of the Government’s intended approach to SEND reform will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn. The Government will also set out further details on supporting local authorities as we transition to a reformed system as part of the upcoming local authority funding reform consultation.
Sir John Hayes
The point was made earlier about rural areas. My county of Lincolnshire has a sparsely distributed population, which makes travel and access difficult for parents of children with special needs. Will the Minister address that in the new funding formula to ensure that rural areas do not lose out?
Janet Daby
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have already said, the Government intend to set out our SEND reforms in the schools White Paper in the autumn. I will make sure that a further response is also provided to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
The investment in the spending review is a critical step forward in our mission to support all children and young people to achieve and thrive, and to support teachers and leaders to deliver high and rising standards across every school for every pupil.
On travel, which has been raised by many Members across the Chamber, local authorities must arrange free travel for children of compulsory school age who attend their nearest school and cannot walk there because of the distance, their SEND or a mobility problem, or because the route is not safe. There are additional rights to free travel for low-income households to help them exercise school choice.
Where a child has an EHCP, the school named in the plan will usually be considered their nearest to home for school travel purposes. We know how challenging home-to-school travel is for local authorities at the moment. That is due in large part to the pressures in the SEND system itself.
Central Government funding for home-to-school travel is provided through the local government finance settlement, administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The final settlement for 2025-26 makes available over £69 billion for local government, which is a 6.8% cash-terms increase in councils’ core spending power for 2024-25.
We have committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, so that more children can attend a local school with their peers. This will mean that fewer children will need to travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs, which will reduce pressure on home-to-school travel over time, meaning that we will be better able to meet the needs of those who still need to rely on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you want me to draw to a close. I reiterate that the Government are urgently looking at reforming the SEND system, so that it better serves children and young people and their families. We have noted all the contributions that have been made this afternoon. This will take time, but we are working at pace and will be setting out our plans to do that in the White Paper in the autumn. Members can rest assured that our approach is rooted in partnership, and that all our work will be guided by what children, their families, experts, leaders and frontline professionals tell us. We can transform the outcomes of young people with SEND only if we listen and work together on solutions.
Graham Stuart
I thank all colleagues for coming to the Chamber on this Thursday afternoon, because this issue is just so important. We have heard really interesting and reflective speeches from right across the House, as Members have sought to champion the children who probably most need help in our society, so it is right that we should be here.
I thank the Minister for her response. I was slightly disappointed, because the title of this debate is “Distribution of SEND Funding”, and it is important to ask whether the distribution is right. Do the Government think that it is, or that it is not? I do not think that the system is defensible as it is, and it would be good to hear that said. Once one has recognised that the system is broken and unfair, the next question is: how shall we fix it? We did not get an answer to that, because we did not get an answer to the first question.
The Minister’s response morphed into what we talk about generally, which is SEN overall, what the Government are doing, the £1 billion extra and all the other things, many of which are welcome, but the question underneath that is whether the distribution is right. If it is not, are we going to do something about it, while making these other changes? We did not get an answer to that.
My appeal to the Minister—I think colleagues across the House will welcome this; I might even get a nod from some on the Government Benches—is to make sure that, in the White Paper, there is an opportunity to make the distribution fairer, if not immediately, then at least over time. We must recognise the problem and look to level up over time. That is not to penalise those who might be technically overfunded today, but to make sure that every child has a fairer and better chance of getting whatever we can best provide from the system. That is an important element of the overall discussion about SEND.
We will doubtless hear more about this topic. The Minister did not seem absolutely clear whether EHCPs were here to stay. Resisting my own strictures on sticking to the subject of distribution, I will use the few seconds that I have left to talk about the EHCP system. When a child gets an EHCP, they get a better outcome. Perhaps that is driving parents to push their children to get one, and that may be contributing to the financial unsustainability of the system that we have today. It would be enormously controversial to look to remove it. At the moment we have a system that from 2019 to 2024 was increased by 60%. The Government are putting in another £1 billion, and another £760 million was announced yesterday, and that is welcome, but if we do not find a way of stabilising the system, we will still have those who are sharp-elbowed getting something for their kids and those who are not losing out. That is not a system that anyone across the House should be satisfied with.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the distribution of SEND funding.
Covid: Fifth Anniversary
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I bet to move,
That this House has considered the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the Backbench Business Committee for granting my request for this debate. I also thank all hon. Members who supported my application. I approached the Committee because it is important that we mark the fifth anniversary of the pandemic.
It was an extraordinary time in our lives and for the nation. In some ways it feels like a dream. Five years on, it seems hard to believe that we actually went through such a period of disruption. The impact has been huge and long-lasting, even if we do not acknowledge that on a day-to-day basis.
I should say that I do not intend to talk about, and neither do I hope this debate becomes about, the origins of the pandemic, the way it was handled, personal protective equipment, the then Government, or any of the inquiries or legalities. There will be plenty of time for those discussions, and no doubt this House will have plenty of opportunities to talk about those things in future. I want this debate to be about people and communities.
We lost a lot of people to covid, and the impact on those who lost loved ones was significant. It cut across communities, ages and faiths. Most of us will have had covid. All of us will know someone who has been affected. Many of us will know people who died and will understand the impact of the grief and loss combined with the shock of a pandemic. There were funerals unattended and people who had to die alone. As the current Prime Minister said at the time,
“People are frightened by the strangeness, anxious about what will happen next. And we have to remember that every number is a family shaken to its foundation.”
It is not just those we lost whom we must remember. The country kept going through the incredible hard work and bravery of our frontline workforce, but it also carried on because of schools, community groups, places of worship, volunteers and people just being good neighbours. Without them, we could not have kept going. I know from experience in my community that the work of volunteers was vital. They put their community first, above and beyond their own needs, as did our frontline workers, from those in the NHS and care homes to bin men, social workers, the emergency services and transport workers, to name just a few. There is a danger as we get into the politics and the legalities that we will forget the many workers on whom we quietly relied, or that we will allow their contribution to be underappreciated. They deserve to be recognised and for their efforts to be applauded.
During the lockdowns I was a member of the Newham council cabinet, with responsibility for much of the public realm, including waste and recycling. I remember the posters attached to the wheelie bins thanking the bin men for their work and for coming out during the lockdown to clear rubbish. In normal times we perhaps do not think about the people who collect our bins, other than to curse a little if it is an early morning collection or mildly panic on realising that it is bin day and the bins have not been put out. In this time of stress, the role they played was emblematic of so many of our key workers, and it was great to see residents sharing their appreciation.
Across Newham, over 650 residents volunteered their time with the council’s #HelpNewham initiative to support the borough’s most vulnerable. There were also more than 500 covid champions, who helped to distribute information and advice to their communities during the pandemic to keep people informed. Those are the people who made such a difference and provided vital support to the local council at a time when it was stretched by delivering vital services in a borough with a high number of vulnerable people and a high rate of infection and casualties.
We often talk about the numbers, but it is important that we understand the sheer scale of the impact that the pandemic had on our communities. My borough lost more than 1,000 people to covid. It was one of the worst-hit places in the country, and at the beginning of the pandemic it was the worst-affected place in the UK. It is extremely easy to lose sight of the impact when we talk about the numbers, and the larger the number, the greater the danger that it becomes a statistic and the individuals behind it are lost. Behind those numbers are real people, real stories and real lives, and we must never forget that. That is backed up with stories of compassion and kindness from families, friends and NHS doctors and nurses. It is vital we find ways for their names and faces to be remembered, and for their families to gain comfort from that memory.
The inspiration for this debate came from my staff during a visit to Plaistow Park. It is there that Newham has created its permanent memorial to covid. In the middle of the crisis, I was certain that we would need to find a way to mark it for local people. It was clear from the scale of the pandemic and the lives lost that there would be national and regional memorials. Indeed, Newham hosts the London blossom garden, a memorial for London, in the Olympic park, which is in the constituency of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). The national memorial wall has also offered much to many people.
Given the impact on Newham, however, we needed something dedicated to our local people. A monolithic memorial felt wrong. This was not a war memorial; it needed to be something that reflected the nature of the people who were impacted. It needed to be a memorial for all—young or old, single or with a family, religious or not. It had to be a space for everyone. What was designed was a memorial garden in one of our parks, created with the help of our parks team, landscape architects and local artist Matt Ponting. Importantly, it was created in consultation and discussion with local people, and designed to work for all in our community. It is a landscaped area in a previously little-used part of Plaistow Park in my constituency, in the centre of our borough, with trees and flowers, seating and its own paths and works of art, in which people can sit quietly, pray, reflect or enjoy it with others. On the day of its opening in 2023, more than 100 local people turned out, including one local resident who had lost his father. Still grieving the loss, his appreciation for having a place that he could visit, and that meant that his father and those who died had not been forgotten, is something that struck me and that I remember vividly.
All politicians hope that they will have a legacy, and we all have ideas of what we might like to achieve. I did when I started as a councillor, and I even realised some of them. But if I had to leave just one thing behind me, I think it would be that garden. Sadly, there is no database of memorials, and no online guide to what has been put in place, but we will all know of something that has been done to recognise the impact of covid. We need to create some form of guide or register so we can ensure that such memorials are not lost for the future. We know that good work has been done.
Researching the background to this debate, I came across some wonderful examples, such as memorial gardens in Telford, Oldham and Enfield, memorial woodlands in Wokingham and Hornchurch, and a memorial mosaic in Barrow. I hope we will hear more examples from hon. Members this afternoon. These spaces are vital, not just for now, but for the generations that come after us. We cannot allow the legacy of the pandemic to be the preserve of documentaries, textbooks and history lessons. It should be a legacy rooted in our communities, celebrating the sacrifices and contributions that were made and remembering those who are no longer with us—not as the statistics they are recorded by, but by the lives they lived.
This year is the 85th anniversary of the beginning of the blitz, which started in my constituency. It was in the east end of London that the phrase “blitz spirit”, which we still use, emerged—a spirit of standing firm and working together as a community. We saw in 2020 how strongly that still existed and, when the chips were down, the strength of our communities. Perhaps we should now be talking about pandemic spirit, and talking with pride about how that spirit shone through across our communities.
Today, I hope that we can contribute to that spirit in this House. I hope the debate will provide comfort for those who are remembering loved ones. I hope it helps to ensure that all who went out to work to keep things going in those difficult days get their recognition. I hope it helps to shine a light on the army of volunteers who stepped up and helped when it was needed most.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues can see how many Members wish to contribute. There will be a speaking limit of three minutes.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing the debate, and for the eloquent and passionate way in which he spoke. I agree that it has been hard preparing for this debate, because in many ways I think we have still to come to terms with what happened. For me, it was particularly strange as a new MP, as I was at the start of 2020. I arrived in this place expecting everything to be seen, debated and understood through the lens of Brexit, because that was how it had been in the recent years up to that point. Just three months after my election, we saw covid and national lockdowns, and everything changed. I recruited staff, handed them laptops and did not know when I would see and engage with them again.
This place was diminished too. The benefit of developing cross-party relationships is so valuable and we do not realise that until there is no opportunity for it. In the same way the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton thanked those in his community, I recognise the staff here who did so much to facilitate the sitting of this House and the work that needed to be done.
Every day, as I come here, I walk past the national covid memorial. On a couple of occasions I have seen people updating or enhancing some of the fading that has taken place—and it is important that we do that. The memorial is across from this place, and we take this moment to remember the 200,000-plus people who died from covid-19 in the UK. The memorial is a daily, poignant reminder of the cruel, devastating and terrifying disease that covid was, especially in those early months. For those affected, the pain of that loss is still acute.
As a Scottish MP, I want to touch on how policy responses to the pandemic highlighted that often we do not have four-nation thinking and decision making. In those early days, everything was aligned and we saw the strength of intergovernmental thinking and decisions. As hard as it was, there was one set of rules and they applied everywhere. There is no doubt, however, that as time went on, the rules got more complex—inside, outside, work, two metres, rule of six and tiers—and they differed between the four nations. I had to have covid apps for Scotland and for England, and occasionally got pinged in different places by different apps. Another example from my constituency was the impact on golf and tourism, and that included the impact of the different rules.
We need to learn those lessons, and I am pleased to see that there is better intergovernmental working between the Scottish and UK Governments. However, where we have different policy responses, we always need to ensure that they are good, they are clear and they are for the right reasons.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing this debate. The covid-19 pandemic had a global reach, yet the impact was not felt equally. On a local level, the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on some of the most vulnerable in society. The elderly, those with pre-existing conditions and people living in the most deprived areas saw some of the highest fatality rates. The covid-19 pandemic in the UK and globally displayed for all to see—or all who cared to see—the damning consequences of societal and economic inequalities.
Globally, covid-19 is estimated to have directly caused 7 million deaths and many millions more indirectly. The global response was unequal and unjust, with many countries starved of essential vaccines, tests and treatments. Though some spoke of covid-19 as being a once-in-a-lifetime event, that is not necessarily true. A key way of honouring those who died, those who were left bereaved and those who suffered in so many ways is to focus on having a plan for the next pandemic. Studies suggest that outbreaks caused by diseases moving from animals to people are happening more often and with greater impact. That said, there are reasons for hope in that area.
A number of initiatives and projects are working to ensure that the next outbreak does not catch us unprepared. One example is the 100 Days Mission, which is a global initiative that aims to have safe, effective and accessible vaccines, tests and treatments within 100 days of the next pandemic. It is estimated that had the world deployed vaccines, tests and treatments within 100 days for covid, rather than within 300 days, we could have prevented 8.3 million excess deaths and avoided trillions in economic losses.
It is welcome that the UK Government continue to support that mission and more general global health research and development. Research in that area and in so many others is so important. We live in an age where some decry experts. I suggest that we need more expertise, research and science, not less.
We need to remember those who suffered and those who died, and we need to mark that by a commitment to ensure that we are better placed than ever before for any such eventuality in the future.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing the debate, which takes place five years after covid-19 swept across the country. It is right that we take a moment to reflect not only on what we have lost, but the duty we have to those who continue to carry the burden of the pandemic. Today I speak for some of the families who caught covid and never recovered. For them, the pandemic is not history, a chapter from their past; it is still very much with them today. I speak particularly for those in my constituency who did the right thing, followed the rules, took the vaccine and were harmed.
In particular, I want to share the story of Adam Bounds, who came from Axminster. He was 41 years old. He was a devoted father, a hard-working man and deeply loved by his family. On 20 May 2021, he received his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and 11 days later he died of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombo- cytopenia, which is a rare but now medically recognised side effect—essentially, blood clots. My constituent—Adam’s father Leslie—has fought a dignified and determined campaign to get compensation for Adam’s son, his grandson, through the vaccine damage payment scheme. It has taken two years and considerable stress and anxiety. The family has now received the £120,000 payment, and Leslie has dealt with it all, causing him an enormous amount of trauma, frankly—two years of form filling, chasing departments and reliving that awful historic period.
If we want people to have faith in vaccines, and I do, we must ensure that we have a proper, functioning compensation system that is swift, supportive and responsive to the needs of grieving families. Justice is about not only those who died, but those who live with the aftershocks. In Devon, 20,000 people are reported to have long covid.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
My hon. Friend speaks passionately about an issue that also affects constituents of mine, such as Anna in Harpenden, a 12-year-old who lives with long covid. She has headaches and stomach issues day in, day out. Does he agree that we need to have a covid register and care pathway to ensure that those living with the consequences of covid are properly looked after?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A covid register makes good sense. She mentioned symptoms, and those can also include tiredness, struggling for breath, memory problems and heart palpitations. We should remember that many of the people affected by long covid are the very people who took the brave decision to expose themselves right at the beginning. They are the people we pay tribute to, such as care workers, shop assistants, health staff and teachers—those who kept society going while others were isolating.
Last month, I was speaking with residents in Sidmouth and met a constituent who shared the impact that long covid continues to have on his daughter. She was somebody who was hard-working and determined but now finds that her energy has almost vanished. She is unable to work and is often confined to her bed, and her social life has disappeared. Like thousands of others across the UK, she faces the potential hammer blow of the Government’s proposed welfare reforms. Most people with fluctuating invisible conditions like long covid or ME will not be eligible, as we understand, for personal independence payments under the new assessment.
According to the Office for National Statistics, 3.6% of adults say they have experienced long covid at some point. If we want a society that is prepared for the next crisis, we must learn the lessons of the last one. We owe it to Leslie Bounds and others in Sidmouth and to everyone across the country who suffered from covid.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing this debate. We have rightly spoken about those who died during the pandemic, but covid also did something else: it made it much harder for people to earn a decent living. Those who were already struggling—the low paid, the young and people in places outside London—suffered the most.
First, covid hit low-paid people in jobs such as bartending, which could be done only in person because they required complex manual movements, while those in high-paid jobs could use Zoom to reach the office. The low paid were hit and far more likely to be laid off or placed on furlough.
Secondly, the young fell behind while the wealthy baby boomers continued to pull ahead. In the two decades leading up to covid, house prices went up by 100% while wages grew by only 20%. That is why the young cannot afford homes. During the pandemic, quantitative easing, low interest rates and pensioners not spending cash meant that baby boomers started to buy homes again, and house prices are up 25% since covid began, while some 40% of 18 to 30-year-olds are living at home with mum and dad.
Thirdly, London continues to pull ahead. Zooming to work enlarges London’s effective size, while places outside the capital lose out. More and more people and economic activity are sucked into the capital. The people who already could not make ends meet are pulling away not only from mainstream parties but from this House itself. The economically insecure are 50% more likely to have stopped supporting the Labour party, but they are also leaving almost every party in this House.
We can reshape our nation so that everyone can earn enough, but we will do it only if the Government act. For the low paid, we must invest to create good jobs and to get bills down. For the young, we must build far more homes. For the rest of the nation, we must invest outside London. We are at this moment a nation deeply divided, and the pandemic widened those divisions.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Thousands of self-employed people and business owners were excluded from Government support because of the arbitrary eligibility criteria. They paid their taxes but were left unsupported during the crisis. Does the hon. Member agree that it is disappointing that those people are still struggling five years on?
Dr Sandher
Indeed, huge numbers of people were hit so hard during the pandemic. We agree that although support was broad, it certainly was not perfect.
On top of the suffering, the pandemic widened existing inequalities and divisions in our nation. Those who could not earn enough—the low paid, the young and people outside London—were hit the hardest. They were already turning away from us in this House; they are now turning away more quickly. We can bring them back only if we act to ensure that every single person can earn enough for a decent life, if we create a nation in which we recognise that our strength is founded in each of us doing well—a nation of unity, common purpose and connection. It is for us to build that nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton rightly noted.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing the debate and for his tribute to public service workers.
We should never forget that in places like Edinburgh, everyone—from bus drivers to bin lorry drivers— took huge risks at the start of the pandemic because the consequences and transmission of the virus were not understood. At this point, I must mention my lovely wife, who worked in end-of-life care as a nurse all the way through, as well as the fantastic Hannah in my office, who worked in a care home.
Covid has not disappeared. The fantastic covid memorial wall across the river from this building tells us that. The number of hearts on it is slowly growing. I hope that, when she responds, the Minister will give us an update on any plans to make the memorial permanent and acknowledge the fantastic work of the friends of the wall.
Covid has not gone away yet. In one week alone in Scotland last year, 443 people were hospitalised with covid. Long covid is now just as prevalent as strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing up long covid. The organisation Long Covid Kids, which was founded by my constituent Sammie McFarland, highlights the experience of young people with long covid. Does he agree that we must ensure we give long covid the consideration it needs alongside other illnesses when we develop health policy, even though we are five years on from the pandemic?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. I hope I will be able to expand on that in the time I have remaining, but that organisation sounds fantastic, so I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning it.
One of the most powerful things about being an MP is the people we meet, particularly in our constituencies. One of those people is Sophie, who attended my surgery in the fantastic Fountainbridge library. Her story starkly portrays the reality of living with long covid. Sophie enjoyed a full and active life before the pandemic. She used to run to her office in the mornings, where she oversaw a small, dedicated team of designers—I am sure she was not too sweaty after her run to work. She now relies on a wheelchair to get around and is largely housebound. She says,
“I am desperate to get back to my career and live again”,
but doctors have been unable to help her.
Sophie is one of a small but growing number of constituents who write to me with stories that highlight the seemingly irreversible impact that a covid infection has had on their lives. With no proven treatments or a cure in sight, we cannot afford to treat covid as old news. We need to keep talking about it, and particularly about those people who are suffering from long covid. It should not be an economic argument, but the impact of long covid on our economy is significant: it is estimated to cost us £4.2 billion up to 2030.
As long as treatment options remain limited and new patients continue to join the thousands already grappling with long covid on a daily basis, we need to do just three things to help them and reduce the burden on our NHS: we need to empathise with those who have this condition and treat it seriously—too often, they are seen as working the system, and I know through the people I have met that that is completely untrue; we need to invest in new trials and research; and we need to recognise that while the threat of covid may have diminished, we have to take it seriously and ensure that vulnerable groups are vaccinated.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare my interest in this debate as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vulnerable groups to pandemics.
“Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives.” It is almost surreal, five years on, to say those words aloud today. Most of us had never heard of social distancing or imagined a Britain under lockdown. Overnight, vibrant communities turned still. Our high streets, once filled with life and laughter, became eerily silent, like scenes from a Hollywood sci-fi. But this was not fiction; it was our shared reality. The consequences were real and the sacrifices immeasurable. Today, as we reflect on that time, we carry a duty to not just remember but learn the lessons for the future.
For many of us, the covid pandemic feels like a closed chapter. The lockdowns have ended, the pubs are open, the masks are off and life has almost returned to normal, but for over 1 million people across the UK, normal never really returned. Those are people who are immunocompromised. They cannot mount an effective response to mRNA—messenger ribonucleic acid—vaccines. The very tool that pulled so many of us out of lockdown—the vaccine—simply does not work for them. That means today, in 2025, they are still living with the same risk that the elderly and clinically vulnerable faced in those terrifying months in 2020. They are still shielding, still isolated and still left behind, and the toll on those people and their families is appalling.
A recent report by the campaign group Forgotten Lives UK found that 93% of family members of immunocompromised patients are still shielding to protect their loved ones. Three quarters of those families are in the clinical range for anxiety and depression. Half of all patients are missing medical appointments, and a third are facing financial hardship. I know the Secretary of State has met with immunocompromised patients and representatives from the Forgotten Lives UK group. I welcome that engagement and echo its call for better support. However, I must express my disappointment. As chair of the all-party group on vulnerable groups to pandemics, I wrote to the previous Minister and the current Minister, asking them to meet me and those immunocompromised patients. To date, I have not received a response, so I would be grateful if the Minister would follow up on that matter directly.
In conclusion—I am flipping through my well prepared speech, Madam Deputy Speaker—we need a whole-Government approach to addressing this issue, and tangible assistance to help people reintegrate into work and public life; and we need to educate society about the risks that covid-19 continues to pose to immuno- compromised individuals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We will not get everybody in unless I drop the time limit again down to two minutes.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) on securing this debate, so that we can learn from the covid years. I first pay tribute to the amazing health workers, volunteers and key workers who supported us through that turbulent time, and I will focus my brief contribution on the often overlooked impact that covid had on maternity services and pregnancy, and on the lived experiences of women. We know that women were shut out of the highest levels of decision making during the pandemic, and their voices were sidelined. Research from the London School of Economics and Political Science found that the Conservative Government consistently failed to consider gender in their response to covid-19.
During covid, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance reported a sharp rise in maternal anxiety, and the already concerning gaps in perinatal mental health services widened further. Informed support networks, which are so vital to new mothers, were decimated by lockdowns and restrictions. The withdrawal of home birth services and the closure of midwife-led units during the pandemic curtailed women’s autonomy over how and where to give birth. That shift saw many women forced to deliver in hospitals where covid-19 was actively being treated, heightening the health risk for mothers and newborns. Post-natal services also suffered immensely. A coalition of 13 pregnancy and baby charities gave evidence about covid-19, and they spoke about the way that the needs of mothers and new parents were consistently overlooked in critical healthcare decisions. For instance, one-year assessments were done by video call; there was a lack of replacement for in-person baby classes; and there were no health visitors or community practitioners.
We are running short of time, so in conclusion, I remind the House that roughly 1.85 million babies were born during the UK pandemic years, and all those children have mothers who had to face that time alone, confused and forgotten. We owe it to every parent, midwife and newborn to ensure that never happens again. Let that be our legacy—not just remembrance, but the resolve to build a health system that is resilient, compassionate and prepared. The next generation deserves to be welcomed into a world that has learned from its past and strives for better.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) on securing this debate. It may be five years since the pandemic began, but those years cast a long shadow. Regrettably, the effects will be felt for many years to come. Across my constituency in and around Bolton, the pandemic left a deep scar, with thousands of lives tragically cut short. Those were not numbers on a board or figures on a screen; they were neighbours, parents, siblings, children, mums and dads, aunts and uncles, family friends and loved ones. Their memory must be honoured, not just with fine words in the Chamber today, but in our commitment to learning the lessons from the covid pandemic, so that never again do we find ourselves wholly unprepared for a public health emergency.
We would be doing all those people who lost or risked their life a huge disservice if we did not learn the lessons of the pandemic, so I implore the Minister—I hope we will make progress on this—to look at how it was possible that our frontline workers were sent into battle against the virus without adequate personal protective equipment. There was PPE that was deemed unfit for purpose, PPE that was not delivered in a timely manner, and PPE that was not manufactured to NHS requirements. PPE contracts awarded by the previous Government meant that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money were squandered through a cavalier approach to procurement, and serious questions were raised about integrity, probity, and value for money. Five years after covid first hit these shores, these issues continue to wind their way through our courts. Of course the Government needed to act at speed—nobody denies that—but what went on is, in my view, inexcusable. Leading anti-corruption charity Transparency International UK produced a 2024 report, “Behind the Mask”, which found a total of 135 high-risk covid-19 contracts, totalling £15.3 billion. Many of those were awarded without competitive tender, and were rushed.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, up to 1,400 people died because of covid, and many in my constituency are living with grief, trauma and long covid. When I speak to GPs, they are rightly pleased with and proud of their role in vaccinating our town and country, but they feel that this role has been forgotten. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must remember the contribution of our GPs as vaccinators, and send the signal that this House thanks them?
Phil Brickell
I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. We should thank not just GPs, but all the key workers who were vital in ensuring that our country could keep going, and who kept us safe during those terrible years.
Returning to the point about Government procurement, the VIP lane disproportionately favoured companies with political connections, rather than prioritising value for money or capability to deliver. The National Audit Office found that suppliers on the VIP list were 10 times more likely to secure a PPE contract from the Government than those who came through the ordinary lane. That would be all well and good if those contracts had provided any sort of value for money, but the Good Law Project revealed that such contracts were 80% more expensive than other suppliers were. Indeed, some contracts were agreed at more than four times the average unit price.
To close, in order to truly honour the legacy of the hundreds of thousands who tragically lost their life in the pandemic, we must act on the lessons learned during those awful few years. We must ensure that there is a proper Government procurement system that can secure public trust.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Hon. Members have mentioned the memorial wall on the banks of the Thames, opposite this place, on which 240,000 hearts denote individuals we lost during covid-19. I want to mention one of those individuals: my grandad Bill. We lost him in June 2020, five years ago next week. He went into hospital with something else, but he contracted covid on the ward and he passed away. He died on his own in a hospital bed. None of us was allowed to see him, because we were following the rules, and the next time I saw him, he was in a coffin, in an empty church. The reason I remember that date in June 2020 so viscerally is not only because we lost my grandad in a way that meant it was impossible to properly grieve, but because on that very same day, the then Prime Minister had a birthday party in No. 10.
Many people across this House and this country will have stories like that. While we followed the rules, made sacrifices and lost people, others acted with impunity. I do not want to make my comments party political— I know that there will be Conservative Members who will also feel angry about what happened—but as we mark this anniversary, I hope all of us commit to ensuring that the bond of trust between politicians and the public is rebuilt, and is never again frayed and broken in such a fundamental way.
In the remaining seconds that I have, I pay tribute to all our key workers, everyone in our NHS and all our communities, particularly those in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. They came together during that pandemic, as we always have in times of hardship, but in a way that we have never seen before.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
In the time I have available, I will focus on education and care provision during the pandemic. I was serving as North Lanarkshire’s chair of education when the Scottish Government directed the closure of schools in March 2020. Within days, the entire country was locked down, and we moved to home-schooling and virtual lessons.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern for the children in all our constituencies who, after losing nearly two years of face-to-face schooling, are still suffering set-backs in their learning and their social skills? Will he join me in calling on the Government to channel investment into those who were at school during those years of disruption, to ensure that there is not a lost generation in this country?
Frank McNally
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK Government are investing significantly in skills and apprenticeships for some of those young people who were impacted by the pandemic, and we need to see that in Scotland as well.
For children transitioning from early years to primary 1, and from primary 7 to secondary, it must have felt like experiencing an alternative universe, given social distancing, the expansion of digital learning and the use of PPE. Sadly, despite the best efforts of those on the frontline, young people lost learning, and we have to tackle that head-on. However, they showed resilience. Sadly, that resilience and those efforts were trampled on when the Scottish Government sought to downgrade the highers results of 2,900 children from my local authority area. Some 46% of young people were discriminated against based on their postcodes, rather than recognised for their ability. Thankfully, young people successfully fought back on that.
I will also touch on the role of carers. Like so many frontline workers, they showed up and put their health and wellbeing on the line to serve some of the most vulnerable in our communities. They did so despite, at times, limited and faulty PPE, entrenched low pay, and poor policy decisions that saw frail patients discharged from hospitals and into care homes untested, contributing to 5,000 care home deaths.
There can often be a focus on Downing Street parties or deleted WhatsApp messages, but at the forefront of our minds must always be the victims of covid, including those who died unnecessarily and those who live with long covid and the psychological impact of the disease, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said. There are also those who delivered the ultimate act of service, including refuse collectors, police officers, nurses, shop workers and many others from the voluntary sector and religious establishments. As we recognise the fifth anniversary of covid, their efforts in the face of such hardship, their resilience and their sacrifice must be the true and lasting legacy of such an unprecedented pandemic, which we must all fight to ensure that we never experience again.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I will follow on from my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). I have been meeting a group of clinicians who approached me, led by Dr Rae Duncan, a consultant cardiologist and long-covid physician and researcher at Newcastle hospital. She has provided me with a detailed briefing note; the two-minute limit will not allow me to do any justice to it, so I will circulate it to hon. Members, but its message is very straightforward. The team want to get across the message that covid is not over. It is not seasonal, and it is not just a cold. It is a long-term, substantial and chronic burden.
Lloyd Hatton
I will be brief. This is Diabetes Week, and we are rightly looking at the impact that diabetes has on children. Does the right hon. Member agree that a similar approach must be taken for long covid? We must look at the unique impact it has on children and young people, so that we can better understand it.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I think the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) needs to respond to the first intervention. I appreciate what is happening, though, and he may wish to take the second intervention shortly afterwards.
John McDonnell
I have never seen an intervention on an intervention. I will follow on from that point. The clinicians are trying to get across to me that, as others have said, covid doubles the risk of a heart attack. We have seen heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and deep-vein thrombosis. In addition, the team is trying to get across the message that long covid is not simply fatigue. It is an umbrella term for a range of chronic, multi-system pathologies that have an effect.
There is one issue that affects children in particular. The work of Dr Danielle Beckman has shown that covid breaches the blood-brain barrier. As a result, it infects the neurons and causes persistent brain inflammation, thereby imposing cognitive impediments.
Lillian Jones
My right hon. Friend is speaking about children. Does he agree that the covid pandemic really affected children who were going through school? All of a sudden, they could not see their friends for many, many weeks. I worked in the NHS. When we are living in the moment, we do not think of these things, but when we reflect, we think, “Oh God, what a time we lived through.” That struck me when I was with my niece, who was running through the park, and she saw her friend—she was 10 years old. They ran and hugged. It was fantastic to see. They had not seen each other for so long. That act of kindness, friendship and coming together of spirit really lifted me, because even children of that age were feeling something huge that they had never felt before. That was an inspirational point for me during covid, and the same point hit me when carrying out my NHS role.
John McDonnell
The intervention on an intervention was definitely worth it.
I will briefly raise another issue. One of the messages the clinicians wanted me to get across was exactly that: children have not been spared. Some of the research they have done, for example, indicates that covid doubles the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in children as well. A recent study in America indicates that up to 20% of children at the moment are endangered and experiencing long covid symptoms.
One of the other issues that came out of my discussions with the clinicians is that repeat infections are cumulative and dangerous, resulting in long covid that increases the risk of cardiovascular, neurological, gastrointestinal and endocrine diseases. These clinicians are trying to get across how challenging the situation is. The problem we have at the moment is that the Office for National Statistics’ covid infection survey has been shut down. I can understand the argument for doing so at the time, but the figure coming out of the recent GPs’ survey is that 3.2 million people are experiencing long covid at the moment—again, a staggering figure.
A number of recommendations have been made, one of which is to restore national infection surveillance as quickly as possible. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has said, we should fund research and clinical services for long covid. We should implement public health mitigations to reduce infection, particularly in places such as hospitals, classrooms and so on. We benefit from air circulation in this building; others should as well. Finally, as my hon. Friend said, we should protect vulnerable populations—including children—from the chronic disability that covid can impose.
I will circulate the briefing paper to all Members, and we can have another discussion at another time. I was hoping no one would turn up today and I would have longer for my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Today, we mark five years since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Just under 227,000 people in the UK died with covid-19 listed as a cause on their death certificate. Every one of those statistics is a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a child, a neighbour or a friend. Thousands were separated from their loved ones, and that loss and grief may never fully heal.
Yet in the darkest of times, the British people shone with immense compassion and courage, and a sense of community spirit. Doctors, nurses and carers worked punishing hours, often risking their own lives; teachers, council workers and others worked in the toughest of conditions; and volunteers came forward in droves to collect and deliver prescriptions, shop for the frail and elderly, staff temporary centres to administer vaccines, and check in on neighbours. That resilience and solidarity showed the very best of who we are.
Sadly, that same spirit of public service was not reflected in the highest offices of Government. The findings of the first covid inquiry, led by Baroness Hallett, laid bare the truth that the UK was ill-prepared for dealing with a catastrophic emergency, let alone the coronavirus pandemic. We had planned for the wrong pandemic, one based on flu; we ignored the risks associated with other potential pathogens; we ignored warnings; and then we failed to act on lessons from past civil emergency exercises and outbreaks of disease. These were systemic and political failings that worsened people’s suffering. Let us be frank: the most vulnerable paid the highest price. There was cruelty in the rigidity of restrictions, with families kept apart even in their loved ones’ final moments. All of this was made more painful by the bitter hypocrisy of partygate, a betrayal of trust that mocked the sacrifices of millions.
The Lib Dems called for an inquiry in 2020, and we continue to demand answers. The full facts must be known about every aspect of the Government’s poor response. This is not born out of a desire for vengeance; the British people deserve to know the truth, and they deserve far better in future. We now have a moral responsibility to act, and this Government must commit to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. Patients and care home residents must have a legal right to maintain contact with their loved ones; a comprehensive civil emergency strategy is essential; and the new UK Resilience Academy must train 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles, as promised. Can the Minister give us confidence that this will be delivered?
The voices of frail and older people must be heard at the heart of Government planning. We call for a commissioner for ageing and older people, to ensure that their needs are never neglected again. Public officials must be held to a duty of candour—the Government’s promise of a Hillsborough law remains unfulfilled. Can the Minister say when survivors and families will see the legislation for which they have waited so long?
We must also confront a hard truth: our nation was less resilient because health inequality has left our population quite simply less healthy. Years of cuts to public health services under the Conservatives left us more vulnerable. The Lib Dems are calling for urgent action to increase the public health grant and allow communities to co-produce plans; establish a health creation unit to lead cross-Government efforts to improve health and wellbeing and tackle inequality; improve access to blood pressure checks in community spaces and expand social prescribing; introduce a new kitemark for health apps and digital health tools, ensuring that they are clinically sound; create a new levy on tobacco company profits to fund healthcare and smoking cessation services; and pass a clean air Act to tackle pollution and improve air quality.
Lastly, we must not forget those living with the consequences of the virus, as Members have mentioned. We call for a long covid register. As we remember those whom we lost, we owe it to them and to future generations to ensure that these lessons are not buried in reports and left on shelves, but lead to real changes that make improvements in our constituents’ lives. The British people were courageous, generous and selfless; they deserve a Government who act to match that spirit.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) on his speech and on securing this important debate. The vast majority of contributions today have been measured, thoughtful and non-political, and I think they have done this House proud. It is right that we remember, reflect and learn. It is the least we owe those who lost loved ones during the pandemic.
As someone who during the pandemic was doing the job of the Minister, I recall it incredibly well, as will so many in this House and outside it. The hon. Gentleman said—I know what he meant—that with the passage of five years, sometimes what happened then can feel a bit like a dream. It is something that still catches me in mine at night. I often wake with a jolt, suddenly remembering vividly something that took place then—something that we did or had to do, or a particular moment as a Minister. I suspect that that is true of many up and down this country in many different walks of life, particularly those who were on the frontline.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My wife was an obs and gynae doctor, and she still is. She was one of those people on the frontline whom the shadow Secretary of State describes. Does he agree that there needs to be a study into the long-term impact on the wellbeing of staff who were on the frontline dealing with these traumatic situations, so as to understand the impacts on health and productivity within the NHS?
Edward Argar
That is important, because people up and down this country still live with the impacts of the pandemic through long covid and mental health challenges. We see that huge impact still today on individuals and the NHS. We must remember how the country came together in the face of unprecedented events, about which we learned more every day. We had to adapt our approach to that changing knowledge. I am grateful to all Members from all parts of this Chamber for what they did.
A few Members in the Chamber were in the House at the time, and they will remember the work of Jon Ashworth, which I recognise in particular. He was in this place at that time, and I remember his cross-party approach to so much that was done. I pay tribute to the emergency services, to councillors and to the people of this country, particularly those who worked in health and social care and those who lost someone.
It was a traumatic time for the whole country. There are lessons that must be learned about planning for future pandemics and supporting those with long covid. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) was right—like so many, I have constituents who lost loved ones and family members who were affected by the vaccine, as has been recognised by a coroner. They have been dignified and courteous, but they call for the Government to review the vaccine damage payment scheme. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion in the spirit in which it is intended.
We owe it to this country to make sure that we are better prepared for any future pandemic. We owe it to those who lost loved ones and those who suffered in so many different ways: those with long covid, those with mental ill health, kids who were unable to attend school, domestic abuse sufferers and those who still suffer today. It is right that we remember, reflect and debate, as we do now, in order to learn.
As a former Health Minister, I have memories that continue to surface. We will all of us live with our memories of that time till the end of our days. The least we can do is to ensure that this House and this country always remember and reflect carefully on what we can do better next time.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am short of time, but the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), who leads on this issue, has hotfooted it from Committee and will take up any issues that I do not address. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing what has been a moving and popular debate. As he says, we have to remember the people and communities behind the numbers. My thoughts, and those of everyone, are with the families and communities who lost loved ones because of the pandemic. We have heard the magnitude of that grief expressed today, as well as the pain of families who were unable to be with their loved ones in the normal rituals of grief and bereavement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) spoke about the loss of his grandfather. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) talked about the loss of Adam, and we understand the battle to get compensation payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) talked about women’s experiences of pregnancy and birth. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for the work that she is doing on the APPG, and I will make sure that she gets a response to her letter.
It has been heartening to hear of the many ways that communities have commemorated the losses and sacrifices experienced during the pandemic. The Government will bring forward a programme of covid-19 commemorative activity, and we will set out full details in response to the recommendations of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration. I thank Baroness Morgan of Cotes and all the commission members for their consideration in recommending how to mark this period, and for their ongoing engagement with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which will lead on the commemorative activity.
DCMS is working with a range of partners, including my Department, and regularly engages with the covid-19 bereaved family groups. I thank those groups for their ongoing support and commend them for their strength and resilience, and for the support that they provide to other grieving families. As part of the commemoration of the pandemic, the Government supported the Covid-19 Day of Reflection in March, when more than 200 events took place. I can confirm that the Covid-19 Day of Reflection 2026 will take place on Sunday 8 March, and I hope that Members will support activities in their constituencies.
As we have heard, across the river from this House stands the covid-19 memorial wall. I certainly remember the first time we stopped at that memorial after we lost my father-in-law, Brian Davies. It is a really moving and powerful tribute to the lives lost, with almost 250,000 hearts lovingly painted on the wall. For families, it is a really important space where they can remember. I agree with the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that it is a poignant reminder when we pass it every day, and I know that my colleagues in DCMS are working with the Friends of the Wall on that long-standing commemoration and will update the House in due course.
Together we remember the courageous sacrifices made by frontline workers across the country, and we have heard about many of them today. There are too many people to mention, but they include NHS staff, train and bus drivers, refuse collectors, and supermarket and delivery staff. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) that many on the frontline were the poorest and lowest paid, and they were disproportionately affected. We must continue to make sure that that does not happen again.
The pandemic demonstrated the remarkable work of civil society. An estimated 12.4 million people volunteered in some way, including as vaccine volunteers, befrienders and carers, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally).
I will briefly turn to the steps that we are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom is better prepared for a future pandemic, which remains a top priority for this Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) made a crucial point about learning lessons on PPE, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). Later this year, we will conduct a national exercise to test our ability to respond to a pandemic, and this will involve all regions and nations of the United Kingdom, with thousands of participants. The outcome of the exercise will inform how we approach a pandemic in future.
We have heard about long covid, and I would talk more about it if I had more time. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke about that, as did many others. Since 2020, NHS England has invested significantly in supporting people with long covid, including through specialist post-covid services for adults, children and young people, and it has invested over £57 million in long covid research, which will remain hugely important.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton for securing this important debate. As we mark the fifth anniversary of the pandemic, together we will ensure that lessons are learned, that our losses are honoured, and that as a nation we do not forget.
James Asser
In the few seconds I have, I just want to say that I thought it was important to have this debate so that the fifth anniversary did not pass without being marked. It is clear that we have merely touched the surface of what could be said, but I thank hon. Members across the House who have contributed. Much has been said, and there is clearly much more to say. I put on record my thanks to my constituents for all they have done. I hope that all the families and all those affected who have been watching will feel that this debate has been important in recognising the past five years, acknowledging that there is more to be said and that we will talk further about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank all Members, and I especially thank the Minister for being so swift at the Dispatch Box.
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for what I think is her triple shift at the Dispatch Box today.
A few months ago, I met three really great young lads—Benjamin, Eli and Jack. We had a great conversation, and they had me laughing and joking along with them for a very long time. I slightly disappointed Eli when I first opened my mouth because, listening to me, he recognised where I was from, and he asked if I could introduce him to Sam Fender. The north-east is quite small, but I do not know everyone, and I could see the disappointment on his face. One of the things we talked about was what they want to do in the future. Eli is considering being a musician, and Jack said he would like to do something involving public speaking or, who knows, even be a politician. It was really great to see that level of ambition, but for me it was tinged with sadness; I knew that they were unlikely to realise their ambitions, because Benjamin, Jack and Eli are unlikely to see their 30th birthdays.
Benjamin, Jack and Eli all have Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is a disease that affects only boys, and about 100 baby boys are born with it every year. Diagnosis is normally at the age of three or four, and at that moment the parents find out that their son has a life-limiting condition that cannot be treated, and that he will probably need a wheelchair by the age of 12 and a ventilator by the age of 20. There is no cure for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, but there is hope now with a new drug called givinostat.
Givinostat was developed by an Italian company, Italfarmaco, and it is an example of the brilliance of our UK life sciences sector that it decided to develop the drug here in the UK. As it has been trialled here, Italfarmaco has given the national health service a unique option to prescribe givinostat through an early-access programme entirely free of charge. The NHS can offer this drug to boys in the UK completely free of charge, and the early-access programme has been available since November last year. Members might think that such an opportunity would be seized quickly by the NHS, but sadly it has not been. Many families have had their hopes raised, only for them to be dashed when they find that they cannot access the treatment. Patients, families and charities are now calling for urgent access to givinostat, as are many Members of this House.
My constituent Tracy is one of the many who have been fighting for their child’s right to live, and for the treatment that has been proven to slow down the progression of Duchenne. Her son, Tom, is 14 years old, and she tells me that he is deteriorating. Givinostat has market authorisation for all boys with Duchenne over the age of six. It has been proven to slow its progression in clinical trials. It is not a cure—the families realise it is not a cure—but it could help boys and young men to keep walking and use their muscles for longer.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I have a constituent, Jamie Tierney, who, sadly, suffers with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Recently, he has been able to begin treatment, as have other patients in Scotland, but it took a lot of work and in some cases intervention by lawyers to get that. Jamie’s family tell me that “Time is muscle”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner we make givinostat available across all parts of the UK, the better it will be for those people?
Chris McDonald
Yes, I do agree with that very timely intervention. In fact, the slogan of Duchenne UK is “Time is muscle”, and it is absolutely right that every day and every week makes a difference to these boys.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He and I spoke about it the other day. I have some constituents who have had a brave few years with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The problem is that the opportunity of this drug has never been there for them, but it needs to be. Up until now in Northern Ireland, Duchenne treatment has included corticosteroids, physical therapy and other supportive therapies, while access to newer treatments, such as vamorolone or givinostat, are being worked on—we in Northern Ireland have not had access to them either. It seems to be almost a postcode lottery. Does he agree that these drugs could give those young boys a life-changing opportunity that they would never have otherwise, and that, with great respect to the Minister, the Government need to move and ensure that they all get these drugs?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am very pleased that he has intervened and I think the comment about a postcode lottery is exactly right. I noted, when I looked at the figures, that currently the Belfast health and social care trust is not offering the drug to lads in Northern Ireland, because it is claiming that it will cost £309,000 for 13 patients. That is different from the rest of the country by an order of magnitude, so I would be grateful if the Minister looked very carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I have been engaging with the Oxford NHS trust, which is not yet providing givinostat to boys in Oxfordshire. Its own business case suggests that it would cost less than £2,000 per boy and £66,000 in total for the 35 boys. Clearly, as a country, we should be able to afford such a sum. Does he agree that a hospital that wants to be world-leading should be providing it? Does he further agree that this is exactly the sort of thing we need Government intervention on, so that these boys can get treatment as soon as possible?
Chris McDonald
I do agree. I recognise the figures from the Oxford university hospitals NHS foundation trust. It is quoting around £2,000 per lad treated, which I understand is very similar to other areas of the country. I see that as quite a small amount of money for the 35 lives that could be saved.
Despite, as we have heard, givinostat being available for more than seven months, there has been a very inconsistent approach across the UK. A very small number of ambulant people living with DMD have so far received the treatment, and no non-ambulant boys have been treated with it yet.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I, too, thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I met a family in my constituency whose son is suffering with Duchenne. He is at that key stage right now where he still has his mobility, but he is starting to lose it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the campaign says, time is muscle? If we act now, we can prevent further deterioration of his mobility.
Chris McDonald
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Time is muscle, as she says. Sadly, because the drug is currently only available, in the areas where it is available, to lads who are ambulant, the waiting time has meant that some lads out there who would have qualified for the drug now no longer do so. That is, frankly, heartbreaking. Of course, the use of one’s legs is not the only thing people are concerned about. We need to be able to use our arms to be able to dress ourselves, feed ourselves and brush our teeth, and givinostat could help with that.
It is very disheartening that while coping with all of this, families, parents and carers and so on are having to fight for access to the drug on a trust by trust basis. They have done that with the support of all the Members in the Chamber tonight. I am very grateful for the fact that they have turned up, because I know families are watching.
I also want to mention some Members who have approached me who would have loved to have been here but cannot be due to other commitments in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) has campaigned on this subject for many years and chaired the all-party parliamentary group. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy), who has the disease, visited Parliament on Monday and was so pleased to see on the Annunciator that we were having this debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) worked together to ensure that Manchester university NHS foundation trust does now provide the drug to their constituents. William from Codicote, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), is living with Duchenne. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) has been supporting Mr and Mrs Binns, whose son Jack has Duchenne. They do not yet have access to givinostat and are trying to get it. I have also had representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand).
We can see that there is broad support across all parties in the House, with Members working with their constituents to try to secure this drug which is free of charge—free of charge—to the NHS. We have heard that provision is very patchy across England. There is some central co-ordination in Scotland, but no lad in Northern Ireland can access the treatment.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It is important to acknowledge quality of life with this drug, but we also have to acknowledge that many people with Duchenne are living with 24/7 care needs, including my constituent, Dylan Phillips, who lives at the excellent care home in Glenbervie. Does my hon. Friend agree that those living with Duchenne in Scotland should be protected as they would be in England under continuing healthcare schemes, rather than having to bear the cost of their social care and living on only £35.90 a week with universal credit and adult disability payment, as they do not qualify for continuing healthcare in Scotland?
Chris McDonald
The important thing for us to consider here is that with only 1,100 or 1,200 lads and young men in the country living with the disease, and only 500 boys eligible for the treatment, we could at least expect some consistency in approach across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
To build on that point, I recently met the parents of a young man in his 20s who absolutely reinforced the need to get givinostat funded properly across the country. I was also struck by how the lives of both parents—they are teachers—and their other child were deeply affected by having to support their son and brother. Does my hon. Friend support my plea to the Minister to reassure my constituents that adult social care services will continue to support people like them, so that their lives can be enriched?
Chris McDonald
It is really important that we remember the parents, families and carers—the big support network around these boys. It seems to be such a small thing that we need to do from the point of view of the NHS.
There are some very good examples: Leicester royal infirmary is leading the way as the first hospital to dose a patient. However, as we have heard, some large specialist children’s hospitals in many areas have been slow to commit, and only a few have actually started dosing patients, although some are still working to make givinostat available. The barriers that we hear about are a lack of capacity and resource constraints. Clinics say that they need small amounts of additional consultant time for pharmacy support and extra blood tests, but really, in the context of the number of blood tests that are carried out in the NHS on a daily basis, this number is really quite small. However, some trusts still insist on telling families that they cannot deliver the treatment because of that. Given that some trusts can and some cannot, I would like to hear from the Minister what we might do to even out the service across the country.
Some trusts have expressed concern that after starting patients on givinostat, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might subsequently not approve it at its upcoming meeting in July, and trusts would have to withdraw the treatment. Well, they would not need to do so: Italfarmaco, the previously mentioned pharmacy company, has made it clear that in the event of a negative decision from NICE, it will continue to provide givinostat for those already enrolled on the early-access programme for as long as it is deemed clinically beneficial to the patient. Continuity of supply letters have been signed between hospitals taking part in the early-access programme and the company to ensure that this is in line with NHS England guidance.
There are two reasons now to accelerate the roll-out before NICE’s decision in July. The first is that every day and every week makes a difference to these young lads; the second is that every lad who gets on that programme before July will be guaranteed this treatment for the rest of their lives, if it is not approved by NICE.
When I met Benjamin, Jack and Eli, I had already disappointed Eli by not being able to introduce him to Sam Fender, so I thought I would try to redeem myself. I said to them, “Look, I’ve come to see you, but clearly, when you came to Parliament, you didn’t want to meet the Member for Stockton North. Who would you most like to meet?”. They all said they would like to meet the Secretary of State for Health, not primarily because he could help them with their disease, but apparently they like him—he is a very popular Member of Parliament. I said, “I’ll see if I can sort that out,” and I did manage to sort it out. The Secretary of State very generously gave a lot of his time—I think his private office thought he had vanished off the face of the earth, because he had a great time chatting to Benjamin, Jack and Eli. I know that his intervention really cheered them up, but it also gave them hope for their futures. I want sincerely to thank the Secretary of State for Health for his generosity in sharing his time on that day and for the difference that he made to those boys.
I turn to my requests of the Minister. In the short term, what these families need is for hospitals with specialist neuromuscular services across the whole of the United Kingdom—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to implement the early-access programme swiftly, and for it to be rolled out to non-ambulant patients, too. The free availability of the drug from the manufacturer means that cost alone is not the barrier here; the barrier is bureaucracy. My simple ask to the Minister is to act with the urgency needed to roll out the medicine across the country as quickly as possible. Every day and every week matters—the lads with Duchenne do not have time to wait.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a real pleasure to respond to this moving debate. I know that many people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and their families will have wanted to tune in to hear what was said this afternoon. I thank Members who have contributed in different ways to the debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who secured this debate and advocated so powerfully for these families. He really brought to life the experiences of Benjamin, Jack and Eli, and I commend him for doing so.
I first acknowledge the profound impact that this debilitating disease has on those living with it, and their families, and the urgent need for new and effective treatments. As has been said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care heard at first hand from people affected by this condition earlier this year, when he attended an event hosted by Duchenne UK. He met many young patients and listened to what they said about the challenges that they face. As we all know, meeting families and individuals from our constituencies leaves a long-lasting effect on us, and it is important that we continue to meet them.
Timely and equitable access to innovative medicines for the treatment of DMD and other rare diseases mentioned today is of the utmost importance. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is the independent body responsible for assessing whether new licensed medicines can be recommended for routine use in the NHS, based on a thorough assessment of their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Through this process, many thousands of patients, including those with rare diseases, have been able to benefit from effective new treatments at prices that represent value to the NHS. NICE has been able to recommend two medicines for the treatment of DMD: ataluren, recommended in 2023, and vamorolone, which was recommended in January this year and is now available on the NHS to around 1,700 eligible patients, in line with NICE’s recommendations.
As my hon. Friend has said, NICE is appraising givinostat, and the first NICE committee meeting is scheduled for July this year. If the medicine is recommended, the NHS in England will be legally required to fund it. I am aware that a small number of patients in the UK have been receiving treatment with this drug through a company-led early access programme, established by the pharmaceutical company Italfarmaco, as we have heard. It is important to note that participation in these programmes is decided at NHS trust level, and although the drug is free to patients taking part in it and to the NHS, NHS trusts must still cover administration costs and provide clinical resources to deliver the EAP.
NHS England has published guidance on free-of-charge medicine schemes, such as the givinostat EAP, providing advice on financial, administrative and clinical risks. NHS England cannot, however, centrally direct NHS trusts to participate in company sponsored EAPs like this one, or in any other private activity. To issue any form of national direction around participation in EAPs would both pre-empt and undermine the role of NICE, whose purpose is to advise the NHS on whether particular treatments should be made routinely available on the NHS.
Even when there is an agreement that a company will continue to provide a drug free of charge in the event of a negative decision by NICE, participating trusts remain liable to cover the significant costs of delivering that service, including the cost of the clinical resources and staff time needed. That would be outside their funding allocation and in addition to paying for any subsequent NICE-recommended treatments that they would be mandated to fund.
Chris McDonald
I thank the Minister for her response, to which I am listening very carefully. I appreciate her point that it would be inappropriate for the Department of Health and Social Care to direct what trusts should do, but what we have heard from the trusts is that they would like to issue this drug, but have certain issues and problems. Perhaps it might simply be a matter of the Department giving help and support, and facilitating information-sharing between trusts that have made this work and those that have not. Perhaps it could be more encouragement than direction.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive suggestion. We need to wait to see how the NICE recommendation goes in July. With this disease and so many others, it is important to share learning and information, and trusts should be encouraged and supported in doing so. We will work with him on that constructive recommendation.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about the fact that non-ambulant patients are not yet able to access givinostat, but it is important to note that the eligibility criteria for participation in the early access programmes have been determined by the pharmaceutical company. NHS trusts that decide to participate in the EAP must only provide treatment in line with the criteria, which state that patients must be ambulant. A clinical trial is being carried out by the pharmaceutical company to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the drug in non-ambulant patients, and to further explore the efficacy of the drug in this population. I know that for the patients and families affected, it will be disappointing to hear that there is no access to the drug for ambulant patients before a NICE decision, or for non-ambulant patients prior to clinical trials being concluded. I want to assure my hon. Friend that we have arrangements in place to support rapid access to new medicines.
Karin Smyth
I will not; I want to finish in the time available, and I think Members want to hear the full response.
Outside of company-led EAPs, there are established routes for patients to get access to new, innovative medicines prior to them being licensed. The early access to medicines scheme, or EAMS, helps give people in the UK with life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions early access to new medicines that are not yet licensed where there is a clear unmet medical need. EAMS is supported by key partners, including the MHRA, NICE and NHS England, and is a key part of this Government’s commitment to accelerating patient access to innovative, life-changing treatments, in support of the UK’s position as a global leader in life sciences. In fact, since the scheme launched in 2014, over 50 medicines, including for this disease, have benefited from being accessed early through EAMS.
The innovative medicines fund has also made available £340 million of ringfenced funding for the NHS to fund early access to medicines that NICE has recommended with managed access. Through this process, licensed treatments that demonstrate substantial clinical promise but still have significant uncertainty around their clinical and cost-effectiveness can be funded. Further evidence is then collected on the drug for a defined period of time. That is considered by NICE in determining whether the drug can be recommended for routine NHS funding.
The Secretary of State has been clear that if givinostat is recommended by NICE in draft guidance, NHS England should aim to work with the pharmaceutical company to provide early funding through the innovative medicines fund. This could potentially speed up access by up to five months, and the treatment could be funded as soon as this summer, if recommended.
This scope of this debate is wider than just access to new medicines. It is important to note that while rare diseases are individually rare, they are collectively common. One in 17 people will be affected by a rare condition over their lifetime. The UK rare diseases framework outlines four priorities, based on engagement with the rare disease community. They are: helping patients to get a final diagnosis faster, increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals, better co-ordination of care, and improving access to specialist care, treatments and drugs. In England, we publish a rare diseases action plan annually. These detail the specific steps we are taking to meet the shared priorities of the framework. I am pleased to highlight the 2025 England action plan, which was published in February this year on Rare Disease Day. One such action is reviewing the effectiveness of early access schemes, such as the early access to medicines scheme, the innovative licensing and access pathway, and the innovative medicines fund. They are all designed to help make innovative treatments available earlier to patients who need them. We are specifically considering how well they support access to treatment for people living with rare diseases like Duchenne.
NHS England, NICE and MHRA will meet annually to continue to discuss progress on these schemes. These meetings will include representatives from patient advocacy groups and from industry, and clinical researchers, and the next one will happen in the summer.
Managing a complex rare condition can be challenging, and it often means interacting with many different specialists and providers of health and social care. It can mean travelling across the country to access highly specialist care from experts. All of that can add up to a significant emotional and physical burden, and it can deepen inequalities. Co-ordination of care can minimise this burden on patients and their carers, and it can ensure that healthcare professionals work together to provide the best possible care, as we have discussed this evening.
In the 2025 action plan, we have introduced a new action to incentivise providers to run clinics for multi-system disorders, in order to reduce the number of appointments and improve co-ordination of care for families. The NHS is also working to include the definition of “co-ordination of care” that is set out in the CONCORD—co-ordinated care of rare diseases—study in all new and revised NHS service specifications for patients with rare diseases.
I recognise how hard it is when patients want access to these new treatments. I also recognise the distress and worry it causes, not only to patients, but their families and friends. Hon. Members have articulated that well on behalf of their constituents this evening. The Government are committed to providing access to the most innovative medicines, but it has to be at a price that provides value for the NHS, and it has to be clinically safe and effective. That is why we are working hard with industry, NICE and MHRA to make that happen. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North will continue to work with the Government and providers to make that happen. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on such an important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch all electronic devices to silent. We will now continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 37
Matters relevant to determinations
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 37, page 28, line 28, at end insert—
“(fa) whether the individual is a member of a proscribed organisation as per section (3) and schedule (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.”
This amendment requires that IFR, in determining whether an owner or officer has the requisite honesty or integrity, to consider whether the person is a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Butler. I welcome all Committee members back for day four. Amendment 110, tabled in my name, requires this Government’s regulator, in determining whether an owner or officer has the requisite honesty or integrity, to consider whether the person is a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Clause 37 sets out the framework under which the Government’s football regulator must assess whether an owner or officer of a football club meets the required standards of honesty, integrity and competence. This is an important part of the Bill. Football clubs are not like ordinary businesses, as we have discussed; they are institutions rooted in community, tradition and even national identity. Those who control them must be held to the highest standards and supporters quite rightly expect that clubs should be fit to uphold those responsibilities.
The Government’s regulator’s task in clause 37 is to ensure that persons in positions of influence over our national game are financially sound and professionally competent. However, the clause as currently drafted leaves the test for honesty and integrity open to interpretation—arguably too open. That is why we have tabled amendment 110, which provides a clear and unambiguous requirement that, in determining whether a person has the requisite honesty or integrity, the regulator must take into account whether that person is or has been a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Let me be clear: this is not about political views, past associations or guilt by implication, but about having a national minimum standard of moral fitness. It should be inconceivable that a person with demonstrable ties to a terrorist organisation could pass the fit and proper person test to own or operate a football club in this country. Football clubs are part of the fabric of British civil society. They are symbols of local pride and national values, and they have international reputations. To allow a person associated with a proscribed group, many of which pose active threats to our national security, public order and democratic way of life, to take a controlling interest in such an institution would be not only morally indefensible, but deeply dangerous.
This is not a hypothetical concern. We live in an increasingly globalised football economy and genuine questions have been raised in recent years about the sources of funding, ownership and political influence across the game. My amendment does not attempt to legislate morality in broad terms; it simply anchors the Government’s regulator’s assessment in existing law, specifically the Terrorism Act 2000, which provides a clear, publicly available list of proscribed organisations that Parliament has already determined pose an unacceptable risk to our way of life.
By incorporating that into clause 37, we do two things. First, we clarify the threshold for what constitutes a failure of the honesty and integrity test, giving both clubs and the regulator a clear reference point. Secondly, we send a signal to not just fans and communities here at home, but investors and foreign Governments abroad, that English football will not be compromised by individuals whose allegiances lie with organisations committed to violence, extremism or the subversion of our national interest.
Football is a global sport, but it must still reflect and uphold our national values. It is not alarmist or over-zealous to say that those who control our clubs must have a character as close to unimpeachable as possible. We are asking them not to be saints—unless, perhaps, they own Southampton FC—but to be the pillars of the community that we already expect them to be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
That was so bad.
Mr French
I have woken everyone up there.
Clause 37 is an important safeguard, but without amendment 110, it lacks a clear and necessary line in the sand. Parliament has already determined that proscribed organisations represent a threat to public safety and national order. That same logic must apply here. I urge the Government to accept this modest but essential amendment and, in doing so, to help to ensure that our clubs are not just well run and financially sustainable, but led by people whose values are consistent with the country, communities and traditions that they are entrusted to serve.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I rise to support amendment 110. I suspect the Minister might say that we do not need to cover everything and that there is a general catch-all measure in the clause, so we do not need to make this amendment.
I will draw the Committee’s attention to a similar case in my own constituency, however, where a member of the public wrote to ask if I could please hurry up his EU settlement scheme application. When we checked with the visas and immigration service, it turned out that he had been subject to a deportation order in 2017, and had indeed been deported in 2017. He had somehow managed to get back into this country illegally and make an EUSS application. He is still subject to that deportation order, yet for some crazy reason, the Home Office still have to go through his application. That is the sort of thing that we should not have to legislate for and that we should not have to state, but sadly we do.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I rise to add my support to the amendment that the shadow Minister discussed very well and clearly.
The point is that the list set out in clause 37(2)(a) to (f), which gives examples of things that would prevent a potential owner from having the requisite honesty and integrity to own a football club, is missing a provision about their being a member of a proscribed organisation such as a terrorist organisation. In football, which is the most international sport and which has very international ownership, it seems particularly sensible to have that provision.
I do not think a terrorist offence is captured by someone being
“convicted of a criminal offence”,
because, as we know, the Terrorism Act 2000 was put in place to introduce various provisions relating to terrorism where it had not necessarily been identified that a perpetrator had committed a criminal offence. The provision in the amendment would therefore be a fair addition to that list.
Of course, clause 37(2)(g) is a catch-all measure that refers to “such other matters”. Nevertheless, the point is that this matter is particularly important and we do not want to leave it to be swept up in a catch-all measure. Of course, if it is argued that it could be swept up in a catch-all measure such as clause 37(2)(g), why have the list in clause 37(2)(a) to (f) at all? I support the sensible and non-controversial amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairship, Ms Butler. I echo the welcome back from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, to Committee members.
I will respond to amendment 110. I reassure the shadow Minister that the intent of his amendment is already achieved within the current drafting of clause 37, which lists the matters that the regulator must take into account when it conducts its owners and directors test. We will discuss that in more detail when we consider the next group of amendments, but I will summarise briefly now.
When assessing an owner or officer’s fitness, the regulator must have regard to any criminal convictions and proceedings, in particular those included in schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007.
The regulator will seek information and expertise from relevant organisations to help it to stay alive to both national and international concerns. The shadow regulator is already building a strong relationship with the National Crime Agency and law enforcement in general to ensure that the regulator is in a strong position to gather the information it needs.
I also reassure Members that the regulator and its staff will have the requisite measures and security clearance to be able to receive information relevant to their functions. Consequently, the current provisions in the Bill deliver the intent of the amendment. On that basis, I would be grateful if the shadow Minister would withdraw it.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments with regard to amendment 110, which I tabled. I have listened carefully to her arguments, but it is still unclear to those of us on this side of the Committee why consideration of the Terrorism Act 2000 was not included in the list of factors set out in clause 37. We believe that is an oversight and, consequently, that the clause lacks the clarity that the amendment seeks to deliver in the Bill and that those who refer to it will seek going forward—in other words, the regulator. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 37 lists the matters the regulator must take into account when it conducts an owners and directors test. That includes what it must consider when determining whether an individual is financially sound, has the requisite honesty and integrity and, for officers only, has the competence needed to do their role—ultimately, to determine whether they are suitable. The matters listed in the clause draw heavily on existing fit and proper person tests applied by other regulators, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and Bar Standards Board.
For financial soundness, the clause includes past bankruptcies and the financial situation of companies and other bodies they have been responsible for. For honesty and integrity, it includes an individual’s criminal history, legal cases they have been involved in, regulatory or disciplinary action, and whether they are banned from entering the UK or sanctioned by the UK Government. When assessing officers’ competency, it includes qualifications, experience and training.
Those factors are specified because they have a bearing on whether the owner or officer could have a significant detrimental impact on a club’s financial sustainability. That is why the legislation requires that they are taken into account when the regulator is considering someone’s suitability. Listing specific matters also provides greater clarity to the industry about what will be tested, and it constrains the regulator, as the matters listed in the clause are the only things it will take into account when considering their fitness. To future-proof the test, the regulator has the power to use its rules to add further matters it will take into account. That will ensure that the list of matters for fitness tests continues to be relevant over time.
Before using the power, the regulator must consult with the leagues. Suitability should be based purely on an impartial assessment of the individual’s fitness, their source of wealth, and their financial plans and resources. The Government have been clear that the independence of the regulator is vital, which is why they have removed the requirement for the regulator to have regard to His Majesty’s Government’s foreign and trade policy objectives when assessing an owner’s suitability. The clause will ensure that the test can be applied consistently and that it remains fair, transparent and robust and focused on whether the individual is a suitable person to own a football club.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Disqualification orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The financial distress experienced by some of English football’s most historic clubs was partly down to unsuitable owners and directors. As we have already discussed, the regulator will be able to conduct strengthened owners and directors tests to tackle that and to help to ensure that each club has suitable custodians. I previously set out what powers the Bill gives the regulator to disqualify a person it finds unsuitable, what happens when an individual is found unsuitable, how they can be removed, how they can be prevented from causing further harm to the club, and the tools the regulator needs to ensure the continued effective operation of the club.
Where the regulator finds someone to be unsuitable to be an owner or an officer at a particular club, clause 38 gives the regulator the power to disqualify that person from being an owner or an officer at any regulated club in the future. In order to ensure that sufficient protections are in place, relevant parties will be allowed to express their views before the regulator makes its decision. Once a decision has been made that takes those views into account, the regulator must publish a notice of that decision, including the rationale behind it. That will help to ensure that those key community assets have suitable custodians who run the club properly.
When the regulator finds an incumbent owner unsuitable, the regulator must begin the process of removing them from the club. Clause 39 therefore gives the regulator the power to direct an unsuitable owner to relinquish ownership of the club. This is the first step in removing an unsuitable owner. They are directed to leave by the regulator and given a deadline, but they have a chance to take steps to leave the club on their own terms before the regulator takes direct action to remove them. For instance, those steps could include selling their stake in the club.
To ensure that sufficient protections are in place, the regulator must consult the unsuitable owner, the relevant club and the relevant league before issuing the direction. If an owner does not comply with such a direction, the regulator can escalate to the next stage of making a removal order under clause 43, which we will discuss in the debate on the next group.
Mr French
Clause 38 is one of the most consequential provisions in the entire Bill. It gives the Government’s football regulator the power to disqualify an individual not only from being an owner or an officer of a specific club, but from holding such a position in any regulated club going forward. That is an extraordinarily wide-ranging power, which amounts to a professional ban from participation in the administration or ownership of an English football club. That power must be exercised with the utmost care on the basis of clear evidence, robust procedural safeguards and fair opportunities for representation.
Under subsection (1), the regulator may issue a disqualification order if it is determined that a person is not suitable to be an owner of a particular regulated club. Subsection (2) extends that same power to issue a disqualification order against officers. The clause in effect makes the Government’s regulator the gatekeeper of who may or may not participate in the leadership of English football. While the Opposition accept the rationale, particularly in the light of past controversies and failures of governance, we must be careful about vesting that level of authority in a politically appointed body.
Three concerns arise. First, there is the question of proportionality. Not every failure of suitability in one club ought to trigger an automatic blanket ban from the entire football pyramid. A disqualification order is not a light matter in itself; it carries reputational consequences that may extend far beyond football. Will the Minister confirm what thresholds of seriousness must be met before a disqualification order is considered appropriate? How will the regulator ensure that such orders are not used disproportionately, particularly in cases where suitability determinations may be contested or borderline?
Secondly, there is the question of due process. The clause appears to allow the regulator to act not only in determinations it makes directly, but on decisions it is deemed to have made by operation of law. That introduces a grey area where someone might find themselves disqualified without ever having had a clear and fair hearing. There must be a full right to representation, explanation and appeal before such a decision takes effect. Will there be an express duty on the regulator to provide reasons in writing to allow for full and fair challenge after a decision has been made? Will the affected individual have the right to appeal to a genuinely independent body—one that is outside the Government’s regulator’s own structure?
Thirdly, there is a concern about consistency and transparency. The risk is of regulatory opacity. If a disqualification order is issued without published reasoning, or if standards vary from case to case, we will quickly see a collapse of confidence in the regulator’s impartiality. Will the Minister consider introducing a requirement for an annual report to Parliament listing the disqualification orders that have been issued in the preceding year, and for a publicly accessible register of disqualified individuals, with anonymised or redacted reasoning where appropriate, for transparency? Crucially, will the Minister confirm that this power cannot be used retroactively—that is, to punish individuals for matters known and previously tolerated under prior regimes, should there be a change of chairman, deputy chairman, chief executive or board members?
English football needs good owners—as a Charlton fan, I can say that with a great deal of confidence and with sympathy for other clubs that have been in similar situations. It needs competent, honest and engaged officers, and there must be consequences when individuals fall short of the standards we all expect, but clause 38 must not become a tool of regulatory vengeance, nor of political interference. The power must be used sparingly, lawfully and accountably.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I declare that I am a member, and former chair, of the RamsTrust. Does the shadow Minister agree, on his point about Charlton, that we would want the use of this clause to err on the side of caution? As Rams fans, we went through a situation where an American businessman was passed by the EFL on the fit and proper person test, and the only reason he did not buy the club was because the money never turned up. This was after he had been approved as a fit and proper person. It turned out that he was a fraudster, and he is now serving 20 years in prison in the US, having passed the fit and proper person test. Contrary to the shadow Minister’s argument, it would be better if the provision was used quite strictly, because we only want the best people to be running our football clubs, which are so precious to communities across the country.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Member for that valuable contribution and for telling us his experiences as a Derby fan. There are many examples that have been drawn on in various aspects of the Committee’s debates, and I suspect that there will be more going forward. Just to be clear, we are not seeking to press the provision to a Division. The point we are making is that we want the strongest owners and fittest people to run clubs, but we also want to ensure that the regulator is seen to be acting lawfully and in a balanced way at all times, to avoid any issues of impartiality. I understand the point the hon. Member makes, which is why I have always supported strengthening ownership tests, even in the previous Parliament.
We do not believe that exclusion based on reputational judgment or politics should come into these kinds of judgment. The Government must not forget that they are regulating not just football clubs, but people’s lives, reputations and livelihoods. That demands humility, caution and a presumption in favour of freedom and innocence, unless the case for restriction is absolutely clear and overwhelming. Where there is doubt, the Government’s regulator must not fill in the blanks with its own qualifications or prejudices.
The Opposition support the need for disqualification in serious cases, but we continue to press the Government to ensure that the clause is not open to abuse, and that football remains a competitive, plural and fair environment, rather than one policed by the regulator, acting as judge, jury and executioner in uncertain circumstances.
Clause 39 empowers the regulator to give a removal direction in requiring an unsuitable owner to take all reasonable steps to cease being an owner by the end of a specified period. The exception to this requirement is when an owner did not have prior regulatory approval, and the regulator can exercise its power to make an ownership removal order within three months, starting from the determination day. The clause requires the football regulator to inform the owner of the club and relevant competition organiser before giving a removal direction. It also requires the football regulator to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction.
It is because of powers such as these that the regulator must be seen as independent. If a Government regulator is to order the removal of incumbent owners, this could be seen by competition organisations as clear interference, which as we have discussed at length, and could cause many issues for English clubs, especially when competing in UEFA and FIFA competitions. I would be interested to hear some assurances from the Minister about how that might work in practice. If the Government’s regulator is to tell clubs that they must change ownership, how confident is the Minister that that will not breach the rules that we have discussed?
This goes back to a point I made in a previous sitting about something that is a theme of the clauses in this group. Giving the owner or officer of a club notice of a regulatory action that is coming will hopefully allow them the rights of representation and challenge, if they feel that they have been handled wrongfully, but it also opens up issues around insider information, particularly with regard to a club’s valuation. I suspect that all hon. Members appreciate that such a change, particularly at the top levels of ownership, will have a dramatic impact on the valuation of a club. We want to understand how the regulator will deal with that issue to ensure that insider dealing, in particular, does not become a widespread issue where the regulator is trying to enforce its actions, as provided for by these clauses. We want to understand how that will work in practice, to ensure that these clauses do not have unintended consequences.
Clause 40 empowers the regulator either to issue a removal direction to an unsuitable officer, requiring them to take all reasonable steps to cease being an officer by the end of a specified period, or to give such a direction to the relevant club, or both. It requires the independent football regulator to inform the owner, club, and relevant competition organiser before giving a removal direction. It also requires the IFR to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. I have the same question about this clause as for the previous one: how will the risk of inside information be managed?
Clause 41 empowers the regulator to prohibit an unsuitable owner or officer from carrying out specified activities or exercising specific rights and/or to issue a direction to the club requiring it to ensure that the unsuitable owner or officer does not exercise specified activities or rights. The clause provides a non-exhaustive list of such activities and rights, including any right
“to vote on any matter relating to the…club’s activities”;
appointing, terminating or changing the terms of appointment or responsibilities of any officer or employee; changing the corporate structure; and undertaking any specified actions without obtaining prior approval from the independent regulator.
Clause 41 also requires the IFR to notify the owner and the club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction. Such action could seriously impair the ability of a club to function while it seeks a new owner or officers, as ordered by the regulator. As we all know, it takes a significant amount of time to find a new owner, and many may be deterred by perceived interference in English football, compared with other nations without a state regulator. Clause 41 may cause more damage to a football club than the owner, who the regulator cannot dismiss. How will the Minister ensure that the regulator uses these powers only if and when deemed strictly necessary?
Clause 42 relates to situations where directions under clause 41 would impede a club’s ability to operate effectively or comply with regulatory requirements. It empowers the IFR to temporarily appoint an officer to carry out a specified function, or redistribute functions among existing officers. It stipulates that those functions must be specified, must be for a specified amount of time, and can be revoked or varied by another order. It specifies that an interim officer is not subject to the duties and requirements placed on officers by the Bill. It also requires the IFR to notify the owner and club of the possible enforcement action for not complying with the direction.
Clause 42 adds to the fear that the regulator could erode the independence of English clubs and how they operate. It empowers the regulator to effectively govern a club while seeking to remove unsuitable officers or owners. Given the time that it takes to find new ownership, that situation could last for a considerable period and cause massive issues on the pitch with regards to investment and transfers—as we discussed in a previous sitting—and how the club functions. It would also leave the regulator wide open to criticism if its actions lead to relegation, for example, for a particular club. Does the Minister think that there is a risk that such a club could be barred from international competitions—as I suggested earlier—or that the Government’s regulator could be left wide open to legal challenge if it directly impacts a club’s performance on the pitch, or its financial performance off the pitch while such considerations, or changes of ownership, take place?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for his points, to which I will respond briefly. There are no changes in the bit of the Bill that we are talking about compared with the previous Bill, other than—as I referenced in my previous contribution—the removal of the requirement for the regulator to
“have regard to the foreign and trade policy”
of the Government. We think that removal strengthens the independence of the regulator, and I reiterate that we do not have any concerns in relation to UEFA.
The shadow Minister asked some specific questions. There are no thresholds in the Bill, but the regulator will need to act fairly and proportionately. There are robust appeals processes through the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The shadow Minister made points about the publication of information. In order to ensure that sufficient protections are in place, relevant parties will be able to express their views before the regulator makes a decision. Once the decision is made, it will take these views into account, and the regulator must publish a notice of that decision, including the rationale behind it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Ownership removal orders
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 43, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) following the revocation by the IFR of the club’s operating licence under clause 19 or under paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 9.”
I am pleased to see you in the Chair again, Ms Butler; it is a pleasure to have you presiding over us. The amendment is fairly simple, and I hope the Minister will consider it. Clause 43 is quite an important clause, because it deals with the removal of ownership. Ownership, in the end, is of a private asset. A club is a public good for the fan base, but in the end, it is owned by an individual or a corporate entity. The clause provides the regulator with a power, not a duty, to remove owners in certain circumstances if appropriate. All my amendment would do is add the revocation of a club’s operating licence to the circumstances in which the regulator can act. In other words, if the club does not have an operating licence, should not that be a factor that allows, but not forces, the regulator to deal with the ownership of the club?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for his amendment. We have seen far too many examples of the damage that can be caused by unsuitable custodians of clubs, and that is why the Bill introduces a strengthened owners and directors test.
I believe that my hon. Friend hopes that the amendment will give reassurance to fans that, where a club fails to comply with regulation and loses its licence as a result, the regulator will be able to remove the owner. The aim is to hold those responsible to account. Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the regulator is already empowered to hold individuals to account for their actions. If the club’s non-compliance or its financial situation gives the regulator concern about the owner’s suitability, it can test them, and they could be failed on that basis. If they are found to be unsuitable, the regulator will have the power to remove them. That ability to isolate and remove unsuitable owners and officers should mean that a club never has to have its licence suspended or revoked on the basis of poor ownership. That means that a club’s fans should not have to suffer the consequences of bad leadership.
The revocation of a club’s licence is the very last resort. We hope the regulator will never have to do that, but I reassure my hon. Friend that if a club is so seriously and consistently non-compliant that the regulator has no choice but to revoke its licence, we would expect the regulator to consider very carefully whether any responsibility for that failure can be laid at the owner’s door, and if the owner is tested and found unsuitable, they can be removed on that basis. We believe that the Bill’s provisions are sufficient to protect fans and hold owners to account where necessary. We hope that they will ensure that a licence is never revoked.
Lincoln Jopp
If a club has lost its licence, has it not therefore been taken beyond the purview of the regulator? How is the regulator still empowered to pursue the owner?
Stephanie Peacock
I will address that point in just a moment.
As a club’s licence is separate from its owners, the licence is held directly by the club itself, not its owners. The removal of an owner will not impact the club’s licence status. This ability to isolate and remove unsuitable and owners and officers should mean that a club never has to have its licence suspended or revoked because of its owner, which means that a club’s fans should not have to suffer the consequences of bad leadership.
We hope that a club losing its licence will be the very last resort, and an unsuitable owner will have to follow the removal order made by the regulator. It will be in the best interests of an unsuitable owner to sell their stake in a club before the regulator has to step in to force divestment and a sale at no minimum price. If the owner fails to comply with this order, the regulator will have enforcement powers that it can use to ensure compliance.
These powers will include a variety of sanctions against the individuals calling shots at the club and, where necessary, directly against the club itself. Where appropriate, the regulator will also be able to seek an injunction from the courts. Having this broad range of tools of escalating severity at its disposal will allow the regulator to take strong action as and when required. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East will withdraw his amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
As set out previously in the debate on clauses 38 to 42, the regulator will be able to direct an unsuitable owner to leave the club in a specified timeframe and to prohibit them from undertaking certain activities at the club in the interim. However, there is a risk that an unsuitable owner does not comply with these directions. For instance, they may refuse to leave the club or continue to use their position as an owner to damage the club. In these situations, the regulator will need sufficient powers to directly remove the unsuitable owner from the club. That is why clause 43 gives the regulator broad discretion in such cases.
The regulator can make an order containing such provision as the regulator considers appropriate to secure the unsuitable owner’s removal. For example, that could include appointing trustees, empowering the trustees to sell the club and requiring the unsuitable owner, or any other person, to comply with the trustees’ directions. However, the regulator can use this power only against unsuitable owners who have demonstrated that they are willing to flout regulatory requirements, or if they fail to comply with the directions that the regulator has made to protect the club from harm. As set out previously, in certain situations the regulator will have the power to make an ownership removal order containing whatever provision is appropriate to ensure that an unsuitable owner leaves a club.
To ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place, clause 44 sets out the process that needs to be followed by the regulator. In particular, before issuing an ownership removal order, the regulator must publish a notice that it intends to issue the order and allow a period for interested parties to express their views. After this, the regulator must decide whether to make the order, and must publish a notice of its decision including its rationale. This helps to ensure that the views of those affected are taken into account in the decision-making process. Separately, the regulator may make rules requiring unsuitable owners to pay costs associated with an ownership removal order, such as costs incurred by a trustee appointed by an order. This power helps to ensure that the costs are borne by the unsuitable owner.
Mr French
Clauses 43 and 44 set out how ownership removal orders are to be made, and the legal consequences of non-compliance. Clause 43 matters hugely because it allows the regulator to force an individual to sell their ownership stake in a club. That is a serious and intrusive power, so we must ensure that it is used sparingly, lawfully and with robust safeguards. On process and fairness, we welcome the requirement in clause 44 to notify the person and allow representations to be made before an order is issued. However, is that enough? Will representations be meaningful, or will this just be a procedural tick-box exercise?
I have some questions for the Minister. Will the regulator be required to give full written reasons for the proposed removal? Will the owner have access to the evidence relied upon? Is there a statutory right of appeal or review, and if not, why? Secondly, on liability and legal exposure, clause 44(6) imposes the liability for costs incurred by non-compliance with an order on to an owner. What types of loss are envisaged for owners? Are they just financial, or reputational and contractual? Who decides whether a loss is caused by the non-compliance, and is causation clearly defined? Could this lead to vexatious or opportunistic claims in the future? How will this work with ownership groups, when there are multiple owners of a club?
On commercial realities, forcing the sale of a football club is not simple; in most cases, these are not liquid assets. The value depends on market conditions, the timing of the economy and sale, and obviously buyer availability and demand to purchase a football club. I therefore ask the Minister: will the regulator have a duty to ensure fair market value is preserved during a forced sale? What happens if the regulator’s actions or any delays cause the value of a club to fall? Could we see a situation where the regulator is frequently appearing in court on such claims? Fourthly, on the broader principle, the clause is in effect a power to force the sale of a privately-owned business. That is a major constitutional step. Property rights in this country matter, due process matters, and so does the rule of law. We need real safeguards, not just procedural gestures.
We want to keep football in safe hands, but the clause needs to be clearer, fairer and more restrained in its use. It must not give the regulator quasi-judicial power without necessary oversight of Parliament. That is not regulation; we believe it would be overreach. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on my questions.
Stephanie Peacock
I echo the shadow Minister’s comments about the power being used clearly, robustly and fairly. I think all of us on the Committee can agree that that is absolutely right. On his question about whether the reasons would have to be written, the regulator will have to give the owner enough reasons for its decision to enable them to understand why it has been taken. That has one of the strongest appeal routes in the Bill; it can go directly to the Competition Appeals Tribunal and be heard on its merits. We think there are robust protections in place here already.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Duty not to operate a team in relation to a prohibited competition
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause is the first in part 5 of the Bill, which deals with duties on clubs and competition organisers. It prevents all regulated clubs and clubs that have been regulated in the previous 10 years from having a relevant team participate in a prohibited competition.
The European super league proposed in 2021 posed an existential threat to the English football pyramid. It was an attempt by a small number of clubs to set up a closed-shop league to benefit themselves at the expense of all other clubs and against the wishes of fans. Ultimately, the European super league was stopped by the sheer will of fans around the country and the then Government’s promise to consider legislation. However, the risk of a similar breakaway competition rearing its head in the future remains, which is why we are now bringing forward statutory protections.
The clause will prevent a regulated club, or a club that has been regulated in the previous 10 years, from entering a team into a competition that the regulator has prohibited. The extension to clubs regulated in the past 10 years will stop clubs circumventing the rules by withdrawing from existing competitions to join a new breakaway competition. Similar safeguards against circumvention are found in clauses 46 and 47, which require clubs to gain the approval of the regulator for the disposal of the home ground or the appointment of an administrator. I will speak to them later.
On clause 45, the regulator is expected to prohibit competitions on the basis of a predetermined, proportionate and transparent framework based on the prescribed factors set out in legislation. That will provide up-front clarity to the industry and mean that new competitions will not just be prohibited outright. That is important to ensure that the regulator does not unduly stand in the way of innovation in the market, such as when the old First Division became the Premier League in 1992.
The clause requires the regulator, when deciding whether to prohibit a competition, to consider several factors, including whether the competition is merit-based, operates on the basis of fair and open competition, jeopardises the suitability of English football’s existing competitions or the clubs in those competitions, or harms the heritage of English football. Football belongs to its fans, so the regulator will also determine and consider the views of fans in England and Wales before prohibiting a competition.
As the national governing body for football, the FA will be consulted before the regulator prohibits any competition, and the regulator will also consult anyone else it considers appropriate. For example, we might reasonably expect that to include other competition organisers, clubs and players who might have been involved in the competition that the regulator is considering prohibiting.
Mr Betts
I want to raise one small point with the Minister. Some time ago, when we debated clause 6, I raised the ability of the regulator to take a view about the impact of new competitions, particularly the world club championship, on the legacy of important domestic competitions like the FA cup. Those competitions will now be constrained for time, with replays being abolished, because a few clubs had to go and do more things in Europe, depriving the majority of clubs of their traditional way of playing in competitions. The Minister’s answer at the time was that a regulator cannot deal with competition matters.
The headings for part 5 and clause 45 include the word “competition”. Indeed, the fan-led review came about because of the European super league, and the then Prime Minister deciding it was so awful that we needed to do something about it. Given that competition can be looked at by the regulator, does the Minister want to have another think, perhaps before Report, about whether, without putting this in the Bill, the regulator should be able to consider such matters, when clubs’ finances and their fanbases’ enjoyment are particularly affected by a competition for a few that prevents more competition for the many?
Mr French
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has stolen some of my lines. As always, he picked up the ball and put it in the net, as would be expected of the chair of the football all-party parliamentary group. There are inconsistencies in what is being discussed, and he was right to highlight them.
Clause 45 introduces a legal duty on clubs not to enter or operate a team in a competition deemed to be prohibited by the regulator. As has been discussed, the clause is clearly a response to the threat posed by breakaway leagues such as the attempted European super league a few seasons ago. While the intention behind the duty is understandable—to protect the structure and integrity of English football—the mechanism raises serious questions about competition and proportionality, as the hon. Gentleman just touched on.
First, on the principle, we agree that the pyramid structure of English football must be preserved wherever possible. Promotion and relegation are sacred principles of our game, and competition on and off the pitch must be upheld. The competitive nature of English football is what makes it so great. This season, certainly in the Premier League, has probably been slightly dimmer because it has been perceived to have not such great competition for the Championship and in relegation, as things were determined quite early in the season.
The Opposition have some sympathy with, in particular, the National League’s 3UP campaign, which has sought to close the gap between the National League and League Two. If we are looking at how to close the gap between the Premier League and the Championship, which has been the main argument from proponents of the Bill, we must also look at the bottom half of the pyramid to see how that competition can also be improved. That is a principle of fairness and competition for which I have a lot of sympathy.
Lincoln Jopp
Does my hon. Friend agree with the analogy that, although we are all very proud of having the Special Air Service as our elite forces, the SAS cannot be created without a very large Army underneath? While the Premier League is the jewel in the crown, it simply cannot exist on its own; it absolutely needs the game beneath it.
Mr French
I will not question the experience of my hon. Friend, whose military background is far greater than one I could even dream of on a PlayStation, let alone in practice. He makes a valid point that English football is much more than just the Premier League. We take enormous pride in all the leagues in our country, as we do for British football more broadly. They are some of the most watched leagues in the world, with amazing clubs and competition. Competition across the pyramid is what we seek to promote and preserve going forward.
The proposed European super league rightly provoked outrage from fans, clubs and Parliament itself, and rightly collapsed after pressure from all those groups, but we must be cautious about giving a regulator the power to prohibit competitions on open-ended grounds. As the Minister has said, the Premier League probably would not exist in its current form if we had sought to prohibit it around 30 years ago.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, as there is not a level of regulation, there is increasingly a welfare issue around the amount by which players are required to shrink their off-season to continue to play football? The commercial imperatives of clubs will potentially have a detrimental impact on the quality of the game.
Mr French
I completely agree with the hon. Member’s sentiment. We will seek to debate that when we come to our player welfare amendment, because we are concerned about increasing the length of the season to generate further revenues. The tournament in America and the Asia tour that has just taken place at Man United are probably the prime examples of the impact that can have on players. The English team, in their performance the other night, sadly looked quite tired. There is an issue around player welfare that we must all acknowledge, particularly given the demands to generate more revenues for the financial fair play rules. I thank the hon. Member for making that point; I am sure we will come back to it when we reach the player welfare amendment.
On definitions and discretions in the clause, the Bill defines a prohibited competition in quite vague terms, and it is ultimately left to the discretion of the regulator. The explanatory notes state that subsection (5) sets out some factors that the IFR must consider when deciding whether to specify a competition as prohibited. What are the criteria for a competition to be deemed prohibited? Will they be set in primary legislation, by guidance from the Secretary of State or by the regulator? Is there a right of appeal if a competition is believed to have been unfairly designated as prohibited?
On international alignment, there is another issue that we must highlight. We must accept that football operates in a global ecosystem, as we have discussed. English clubs routinely participate in international and cross-border competitions, whether that be the Champions League, the Europa League or the Club World Cup, as does the national team. How does the clause interact with UEFA and FIFA competition rules? What happens if, for example, a competition is sanctioned by UEFA but deemed prohibited by the football regulator, or vice versa? This is a real issue for the regulation. We would like some clarity from the Minister on how such a conflict would be resolved, because it would put clubs in a very confusing situation.
On enforcement and penalties, clause 45 creates a legal duty not to participate, but what are the sanctions if a club does so? One assumes that it would lead to licence revocation, but what else? Would there be fines or points deductions? What penalties will the regulator look to enforce? Will they be proportionate? Will clubs be given prior notice and the chance to make representations?
On unintended consequences, we must avoid stifling innovation and competitive evolution in the sport. Not every new competition is a threat; some may bring financial or structural benefits, or benefits for fans. As I and the Minister have highlighted, we must remember that the Premier League was technically a breakaway league from the old First Division. If that happened today, we believe that the Bill and the regulator would be responsible for preventing that league, and all the attributes and characteristics that we celebrate in this country, from existing. We have to look at innovation carefully, and the answer must not always be no if there are clear benefits to the country and to the game of football itself.
We support the aim of preserving the integrity of English football, but the clause must be clearly defined, tightly drawn and fairly enforced. A law designed to stop the next European super league must not become a tool for bureaucratic overreach or political intervention by the regulator. The game belongs to its fans and its communities, not to the regulator or the governing body. I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on my questions, particularly those about how the international system would interact with a prohibited competition.
Lincoln Jopp
I wish to build on my hon. Friend’s themes. Football has the unfortunate concept of the friendly; frequently, they are not very friendly at all. When I read the Bill, it was clear to me that the drafters had in mind the prevention of another flyaway European super league, which we have debated.
I would like the Minister to look at look at the example of a one-off friendly match. Many of our teams tour in the far east and in America, in their off-season, to generate additional revenues and expand their fan base and brand. Let us envisage a set of circumstances in which a North Korean has somehow managed to purchase an English football team, and they have the bright idea that they would like to play a “friendly” match in North Korea. It is a one-off match, but the Government in North Korea decide that they want to make a big deal of it, so it becomes the Pyongyang cup—a one-off match between the English team and the North Korean team. In the Minister’s view, would the regulator be justified in considering whether such a one-off match was a competition and therefore within the purview of the regulator?
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. Pre-season friendlies constitute cup competitions all the time. There is the Audi cup; any major brand we could name will have sponsored friendly cups. When the Minister gives the hon. Gentleman assurance on the Pyongyang cup, perhaps she might also cover the friendly cups that actually exist.
Lincoln Jopp
The hon. Member makes a pertinent point. As I said, the word “competition” seems to refer to the sort of flyaway league we have discussed; are one-off friendlies competitions under the terms of the Bill?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to Members for their contributions and will take their points in turn.
The clause applies both to existing and to new competitions. If any competition breaches the criteria, it can be prohibited, but matters such as scheduling are for competition organisers.
On shadow Minister’s points, we will come on to player welfare, to which we are all very sympathetic, just as we are sympathetic to the 3UP campaign, but it is outside the Bill’s scope and is for organisers. He asked some specific questions on the criteria; that will be for the regulator to determine. It is expected to do so based on a predetermined, proportionate, objective and transparent framework based on factors listed in the clause. For example, if a competition is not merit-based, jeopardises the sustainability of existing domestic competitions, and is not supported by the fans, we would expect it to be prohibited.
Mr French
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Member for Newbury highlighted the issue of friendlies. The Minister has indicated that she will come to that, but I do think we need some clarity as to what that might look like in practice. The end-of-season competitions are normally internationally designed, and although they may be endorsed by UEFA or FIFA, they would breach some of the conditions under the definition the Minister just gave. We need clarity about how this will work, because we do not want to put English football on a collision course with international football.
Stephanie Peacock
No, of course we do not. I totally agree. I was coming to that point. As I understand it, friendlies would be out of scope, but I am happy to write to Committee members if they would like greater clarity.
We have discussed the appeals and representations several times. The relevant competition organiser will be given a period in which they can make representations. If the organiser has concerns about the regulator’s decision to prohibit the competition, it will be able to appeal the decision. As has been discussed, the organiser can also appeal to the competition appeal tribunal.
Mr French
I thank the Minister for those remarks. I suspect that a letter of clarity would be helpful for all Members. There is a risk that FIFA, or UEFA, as we have seen with the Nations League in recent years, looks to introduce a new competition, whether at club or international level, that would contradict the regulator. As we have spoken about at length, and as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East has described, the different governing bodies of UEFA and FIFA are often in competition with our national competitions. We have to ensure that clubs are not forced to choose between a licence in the English game and partaking in international competitions. We fear that could drive acceleration toward a breakaway league, rather than prevent one.
Stephanie Peacock
I completely appreciate the shadow Minister’s comments. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not ban all international competitions automatically. We are mindful of enabling innovation in the market. I am happy to supplement my comments with a letter to Committee members.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 88, in clause 46, page 38, line 26, leave out second “home ground” and insert “specified properties”.
Amendment 89, in clause 46, page 38, line 27, leave out “home ground” and insert “specified properties”.
Amendment 90, in clause 46, page 38, line 28, leave out “home ground” and insert “specified properties”.
Amendment 86, in clause 46, page 39, line 11, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
“(10) In this section, ‘specified properties’—
(a) in relation to a body that is a regulated club, means the ground at which a relevant team operated by it customarily plays its home matches, the property at which a relevant team customarily trains and any other properties that make up a more than negligible part of the relevant team’s operations;
(b) in relation to a body that is a formerly regulated club, means (immediately before it ceased to be a regulated club) the ground at which a relevant team operated by it customarily played its home matches, the property at which a relevant team customarily trained and any other properties that make or made up a more than negligible part of the relevant team’s operations.”
Mr Betts
The purpose of this group of amendments is to introduce a wider definition of a club’s home ground that includes the training ground, which is how the different amendments link together. Amendment 86 sets out the wider definition that is then used in the other amendments. In the end, in this day and age, most professional clubs cannot survive with just a home ground and need additional facilities. If those additional facilities are sold off, the club can become unviable. That is what some unscrupulous owners will seek to do, because sometimes the training ground is the most valuable asset in potential for development.
Mr Dillon
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments find support from the Liberal Democrats. He referenced training grounds, and Reading football club’s training ground, Bearwood Park, was actually in that exact position. The owner tried to sell it off because it was prime land for residential development. However, without that training facility, the club would clearly struggle to continue. There was even the potential to sell the training ground to rivals Wycombe Wanderers, so that they could then have an enhanced training ground. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 11, which seeks to protect various assets of a football club, including the training ground, so he has our support.
Mr Betts
I hope the Minister can take this seriously; it is a worry that the Bill does not quite go far enough at present. The reality is that this legislation tries to deal with bad owners and anticipate how they might behave. The more restrictions that we can build around bad behaviour, and possibilities for controlling it, the better.
Lincoln Jopp
I appreciate the desire to legislate for bad owners, but is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about good owners who might find money very tight? They have assets beyond the home ground and team itself that they might have to consider selling, including a training ground, to remain financially viable and therefore be on the right side of the regulator in their business plan. Is he not concerned that, by extending even further the regulator’s purview into all properties, he might overly constrain good owners from doing what they want to save their clubs?
Mr Betts
I do not believe that is the case. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I think what we are saying here is that this gives the regulator the power to look at that situation. The worry is that some owners will try to exploit not for good football purposes but because they can see themselves making a profit on the side. That can damage the competitive ability of the clubs that they own. Unfortunately, some owners take that capricious view, and it is for them that we must legislate. I do not believe my amendments would adversely affect good owners, as I do not think the Bill does either.
Mr French
I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Similar sympathies apply to the situation at Reading, which is also still the case at Charlton’s Sparrows Lane training ground, which is owned not by the current owners but by two owners ago, as is the stadium. How would the hon. Gentleman’s amendments work with regards to the Everton example, where Goodison is now to be used for the women’s game? How would his amendments cover those kinds of properties? An owner might want to sell the women’s ground, even though the women’s game is technically outside the scope of the regulator.
Mr Betts
At this stage, my amendments cover the facilities that are within the scope of the regulator, so I do not think they apply to any properties that are outside the scope of the regulator. Obviously, the regulator cannot deal with things outside its scope.
I hope the Minister might give some consideration, even if the wording of my amendments are not absolutely right, to how the Bill can be better drafted to cover the point. Straying slightly on to amendment 83, there is a similar point about trying to ensure that, where there is a sale of certain assets, before they are sold, suitable alternatives are in place so that the club does not potentially lose its licence, as it has nowhere to play and train. I appreciate that I have strayed there; you have been very considerate, Ms Butler, in helping me to do that. I just thought it would help move proceedings along.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for tabling his amendments. Prior to speaking to them, I would like to let him know that I have raised his points on a similar issue—on assets of community value—with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris). I spoke to him following our Committee session on Tuesday, and he has committed to write to my hon. Friend as swiftly as possible, so I will follow up with him in a timely fashion.
Turning to my hon. Friend’s amendments, I hope I will be able to reassure him on the development of the reform. I understand the intention of his amendments, but I will explain why we intend to resist the changes to include specified properties. On extending the scope of clause 46 to include training grounds, among other properties, the legislation has carved out specific protections to safeguard home grounds against risky financial decisions or sales of the grounds. I will speak specifically to the mechanism of clause 46 and the approval process later, but the focus on the home ground is to reflect that it is often the most financially significant asset at the club. That does not mean that other assets such as training grounds or office space are not also important to the club, but that there is a specific consideration necessary for the home ground.
I understand that my hon. Friend’s amendments are likely in response to instances where owners have intended to asset strip or make reckless decisions. Members on the Committee have shared some examples, and we are all familiar with recent ones. I wish to reassure all that there are protections elsewhere in the Bill to safeguard against this. That includes an enhanced owners and directors test that will ensure that owners are prepared to be appropriate custodians of their club and its assets, as we discussed on part 4 of the Bill. If it were to become evident that an owner’s actions were likely to worsen the financial position of the club, the licensing regime gives the regulator power to place licensing conditions on the club. The regulator can also take enforcement action where such a condition has been breached or the financial plan has not been followed. Additionally, the regulator will have oversight of the financial plans and balance sheets of the regulated clubs, ensuring that the club is not putting itself in a risky position unnecessarily.
Mr French
On the point about risky situations and the risk-averse nature the Minister is describing, the Bill is clearer on disposable home grounds. I am intrigued to see how the regulator would deem a club either selling its freehold and then having a leaseback option, which we have heard has happened, or looking to move to a ground or stadium that it did not own and pay rent going forward. Would that be seen as a bad financial move or a good one by the regulator? It is not quite clear how it would work for non-disposable treatment of assets.
Stephanie Peacock
I do not want to get drawn into hypotheticals. As we previously discussed, there might be a perfectly legitimate reason for a club to move—or to move temporarily, such as for flooding. It is not an absolute power. We want to give the regulator discretion when clubs may need that for legitimate reasons. The amendment speaks to where we think clubs are asset stripping or acting in bad faith.
We would expect the power to include assets remaining in the club’s ownership and any plans to change its financial arrangements. It would be at odds with the sustainability of a football club for there to be no home ground or location to train. It is therefore implicit that the regulator would address that.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, I believe that there is provision in the Bill to do that. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister knows—I have approached her about this—that a club in my constituency of Spelthorne has gone into administration. It has no home ground, but it does have a training ground, which is a community asset. I am intrigued to know whether, in the potential conflict between the purview of the regulator and the enactment of companies law in dealing with the administration of the company, the provisions in the clause give the regulator power to influence the administrator on the manner of the administration and whether clubs’ training grounds can be bought or sold. What is the hierarchy of legislative authority between companies law and the clause?
Mr Betts
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 46, page 39, line 2, at end insert—
“(ii) in the case of the home ground and training ground, it is satisfied that there are suitable plans in place to ensure the club’s continued long-term use of the home ground or training ground or to secure an alternative home ground or training ground for the next football season;
(iii) in the case of a home ground, it is satisfied that any alternative under sub-paragraph (ii) will have been actively approved by the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales if any of the following non-exhaustive factors represent a significant upheaval of the connection between the fans of a club and the club: proximity to home ground, proximity to other clubs' grounds, journey time for fans and any other factors that the Regulator deems relevant;”
I have a simple question for the Minister. If the regulator decides that a sale can go ahead, is the power there to allow it to be satisfied that there are suitable plans to ensure that the club will have long-term use of a home ground and training ground? That may not be the ground it had before, but there must at least be a replacement. Does the regulator have the power to ensure that?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend tabling the amendment. It seeks a number of things: extending the clause to include training grounds; guaranteeing long-term use of home grounds and/or training grounds; and introducing parameters for home ground relocation. If it is helpful, I will address those briefly, but I appreciate that this debate is similar to the one we just had.
On extending the scope of the clause to include training grounds, the Bill has carved out specific protections to safeguard home grounds against risky financial decisions or the sale of grounds. As I said in the previous debate, that is to reflect the home ground being the club’s most important asset. It does not mean that other assets, such as training grounds or office space, are not important.
I understand that, as we have discussed, the amendment is really focused on asset stripping. As I have alluded to—I will be a bit clearer and perhaps more explicit—the regulator has the power to attach discretionary licence conditions. Therefore, on the point about needing a training ground, I believe that the regulator could apply a temporary or particular licence condition on a club.
Mr French
I will not dwell on this point too much, but the implications of this amendment and the ones that we were just discussing are not hypothetical; we have seen real-life examples of where this issue has become a real one for football clubs. So, we seek some clarity from the Minister about how the regulator would act in such scenarios in the future.
As I said in my previous comments, I think the disposal of a ground is probably slightly clearer than the relocation of a ground. However, I will use the example of Coventry City football club. When they moved to the Ricoh Arena, I believe that the stadium was jointly owned by the local council and another group. I assumed that the club moved to a new stadium with the best interests of the club at heart. I had the pleasure of going to Coventry’s old stadium when Charlton played Coventry in the FA Cup, but that is a bit by the by. It was in need of improvements; most people would have thought that.
How would this measure work? We know that Coventry ran into a number of issues with the Ricoh Arena, which I believe is now owned by the Frasers Group. At that point in time, when the club moved, would that move have been deemed to be in the regulator’s purview of an inappropriate action by the previous owners? I ask that question because this is a real-life example of where it is not clear how this legislation would apply. As Parliament, we have to be clear how we intend the regulator to behave in such situations, because, as I say, that was a real-life example of how football clubs might seek to improve their stadia when they do not have the assets to do so themselves.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I draw his attention to the discretionary licensing addition that I have referred to: the regulator can react to different situations. I do not want to be drawn on individual cases, nor do I want to pre-empt the actions of the regulator.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 85, page 39, line 5, at end insert—
“(6A) Before the IFR grants an approval under subsection 6 it must—
(a) consult the supporters of the body in question, the relevant competition organisers and persons representing the local community with which the body is associated, and
(b) have regard to the views expressed by those consulted.”
Mr Betts
I really do not understand the way in which the Bill is written at present; perhaps the Minister can help me with that.
We will come on to clause 48, which is about the relocation of a club; of course, that means moving grounds. As set out in clause 48 4(c) and (d), there is a specific requirement on the club to consult with fans. We can have another discussion at some point—we may do—about consultation with which fans and which groups. I still think that this is a challenging issue that we need more clarity about.
Clause 46 is about the disposal of a ground, which is a very emotive subject for fans. It may not be the wrong decision to relocate, and clubs can relocate and take their fans with them, with proper involvement; the Everton example is probably in that category. However, there is no requirement at all to consult the fans on the potential sale of a ground. That seems to be a big omission in the Bill. Fans would not have a veto, because it is understood that sometimes there are very good commercial reasons as to why a club needs to move, which can be accepted and explained to the regulator.
Therefore, I am not saying that the disposal of a ground has to get the full approval of the fans, but surely there should be a measure whereby the fans are at least consulted and their views taken into account before the home ground of a club, where the club may have played for 100 years, is disposed of. That would not be inappropriate.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments. Home grounds are a vital asset for all clubs, so I do understand his intent.
Regarding changes to the ownership of a home ground, the potential adverse outcomes are entirely financial. We do not believe that they impact the heritage of the club, which is why clause 46 does not require any heritage consideration or fan engagement. Additionally, decisions about the financial arrangements of a home ground are commercial decisions and therefore we do not think it is appropriate to legislate on them. However, I will reassure my hon. Friend that if the sale of a club’s home ground would result in the relocation of the club, fans absolutely have to be consulted about that, as per clause 48, which we will discuss later. We know how much home grounds matter to fans and communities, but this clause is purely about protecting a club’s financial position.
Mr Dillon
I seek some clarity on the relocation of a ground. White Hart Lane was demolished and rebuilt on a similar, but bigger footprint. Obviously, at Old Trafford, Manchester United’s owners are talking about building on land next to the stadium. Personally, I would not class either of those moves as the relocation of a ground. However, in the Bill would they count as relocation, because those new stadia are not on the same footprint as the original stadium?
Stephanie Peacock
I will double-check that point, but I believe they would. I also refer to the points we discussed earlier in the Committee: clubs may want to move for a particular, legitimate reason—to improve their ground, or because they have to due to flooding in adverse weather, for example. We appreciate that these are not all bad actors and it is not all bad faith, but I will double-check that point and come back to the hon. Gentleman. We know how much home grounds matter to fans and communities; this clause, together with the owners and directors test, is about protecting the club’s financial position and its balance sheet from asset stripping by bad actors.
Mr Betts
Is the Minister saying, then, that a club owner could sell the ground without even consulting the fans—just present it as a fait accompli—and then, because there would not be a home ground to play on and the club might have to relocate, at that point they could say to the fans, “Well, the ground’s gone; we’re now going to ask you whether you want to move.”? There seems to be a gap in the thinking somewhere.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate that point, but the sale of home grounds is a primarily financial decision, separate from the decision about where the club actually plays its games. That is why there is currently no requirement to consult or obtain approval. If the club has not actually relocated, it would be caught in clause 48 and would be required to consult fans. We will come on to discuss that later.
Mr French
I must admit that—like other members of the Committee, to judge from their facial expressions—I am slightly confused by the reasoning the Minister has given in response to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East on this clause, and where the distinction lies between the ultimate decision to relocate the ground and the sale of the ground. The decisions are clearly interlinked, and I would argue that fans would have strong concerns if a club owner was seeking to sell the ground, which would in a number of instances lead to either a relocation or an impact on the club’s heritage. The sale, for example, could lead to the renaming of a stadium, and the fans would clearly have a view on how that would impact their support for the club.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s points, because the clause seems to lack clarity on how that distinction is being made. I understand the point she is making about the financial considerations of owners, but the Government should reflect carefully on the argument against this clause, because it is not very clear to members of the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the comments that have been made, and I will take them away and reflect on them, but I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East at this point to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Betts
The Minister has taken a very sensible approach. I accept that accepting an amendment here and now, out of the blue, is not how Government operate; but there is a lack of consistency between the two clauses, so I appreciate her agreeing to go and have a look at them. She has not committed to a change, but she has agreed to have a look, and that is very helpful. On that basis, 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
As discussed during the debate on the previous amendments, clause 46 serves as an important protection for the home ground of a club. It requires clubs to gain the approval of the regulator prior to any sale or use of the home ground as collateral. A home ground is often one of the most vital and valuable assets a club can own. If it is used as collateral for debt or sold off, that can impact a club’s financial position by weakening the balance sheet. Not owning the stadium may also threaten a club’s long-term financial sustainability.
This clause requires clubs who own their ground to obtain the approval of the regulator prior to any sale or use as collateral. The regulator will consider the risk to the financial sustainability of the proposed transaction and block any potentially financially damaging sale of a club’s home ground. This applies to regulated clubs and also to any club regulated within the last five years, which prevents bad actors from being able to circumvent regulation by leaving regulated leagues in order to skirt protections and strip assets. It recognises the important role that football grounds play in the financial sustainability of clubs and adds protections against bad actors.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Duty not to appoint administrator without approval
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
This clause sets out the duty on regulated and formally regulated clubs not to appoint an administrator without approval from the regulator. This is to ensure that administration is transparent, acts in the best interests of the club and its creditors and avoids any perceived or actual conflicts of interest. This will give all stakeholders, especially fans, confidence in the administration process.
As with clause 46, this applies to regulated and formally regulated clubs to avoid any risk of circumvention of the rules. The regulatory framework is not a zero-failure regime, so it is possible that football clubs may enter administration despite the best efforts of the regulator. There is already a legal framework for companies, including football clubs, to enter into administration, which is detailed in the Insolvency Act 1986. In many cases, the existing framework has enabled clubs to go into administration and re-emerge as solvent.
However, there are occasions where the administration of a club is not initiated by the creditors but the club itself, so it does not require a court to sanction the appointment in advance. In these circumstances, there have been occasions when some have had cause to question a relationship between the insolvency practitioner appointed as administrator and the football club. This is why, in specific circumstances, the appointment of an administrator requires the regulator’s approval to ensure that the process is transparent, and to avoid conflicts of interests or perceived bias in the appointment. By doing so, all stakeholders, particularly fans, should have more confidence that the outcome is the best one available in the circumstances for the individual club.
Mr French
Clause 47, as the Minister has just outlined, creates a new legal duty on clubs not to enter administration without the prior approval of the regulator. This is an unprecedented intervention: a regulator potentially blocking access to what is, in most sectors, a standard insolvency mechanism. We understand the intent to prevent abuse of administration as a means of dodging financial responsibility and to help protect club continuity. However, this clause raises serious concerns about the balance between corporate law and football regulation going forward.
As drafted, subsection (1) says,
“as soon as reasonably practicable after the body considers that there is a reasonable prospect of an administrator of the body being appointed”.
I would therefore naturally ask the Minister: what constitutes “reasonably practicable” and “a reasonable prospect”? We all appreciate that, in most examples, an owner’s wealth is generated not by the club itself but other business interests. It may become very difficult to determine what is “a reasonable prospect” if we are looking at business interests far from football.
Administration is recognised as part of UK insolvency law, which the Minister referred to, and it exists to help distressed businesses rescue viable parts and protect creditors where possible. Blocking access to administration could make things worse, not better, specifically if it delays actions or deters future buyers. Why are the Government confident that the regulator is better placed than insolvency professionals to determine when administration is appropriate?
On some of the practical risks, insolvency situations often develop quickly, and clubs may need to act fast to avoid a complete liquidation of assets. A duty to obtain the regulator’s approval would therefore add delay and could risk total collapse where speed might be essential. We have seen that in a number of club takeovers over the years. Will there be an emergency approval process for an administrator? Within what timeframe does the Minister expect the regulator to respond? Is there a default route if it does not respond in a quick enough time?
On consistency with company law, clause 47 effectively overrides the Companies Act 2006, creating a two-tier insolvency regime for football clubs. That is not a small step. It sets a precedent for sector-specific interference into commercial law. What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with the Insolvency Service and the Department for Business and Trade on this specific clause and mechanism going forward? Are there any comparable sectors in the UK where companies would be forbidden from entering administration without the regulator’s consent?
Lastly, on unintended consequences, could this provision make distressed clubs less attractive to investors who fear regulatory delays? I fear that it may. It may also push clubs to delay taking action, making outcomes worse for creditors, fans and staff in the longer term. It could also expose clubs to legal risks, if creditors challenge a failure to act promptly to directors. The Opposition support strong oversight, but clause 47 must not become a regulatory roadblock in moments of crisis. Football clubs must be able to act swiftly to protect their future. The football regulator should be a safeguard, not a barrier to survival. We urge the Minister to have a close look at some of those questions and hopefully provide some answers today. We fear that this clause, as drafted, may have a number of unintended consequences.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 5, page 11, line 22, leave out—
“by a constable or other authorised person”.
One of the tests for detaining a person under the mental health legislation is that harm may be caused, or that treatment is not possible, without detention. This amendment and amendments 27, 28 and 29 remove wording stipulating that the detention that is necessary must be detention by a constable or other authorised person (as defined).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 27 to 29.
Clause stand part.
Stephen Kinnock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
Government amendments 26 to 29 seek to remove previous amendments to the clause tabled by Lord Kamall, Earl Howe and Baroness May of Maidenhead, which added police and other authorised persons to sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act 1983, giving the police additional powers to detain people under the Act where they currently have no powers to intervene. We do not support extending police powers in that way, and we understand that the police do not support an extension either. It would not be appropriate to involve police officers in clinical decision making about whether a person meets the criteria for detention for assessment or treatment under the Act, or to involve them unnecessarily in the temporary detention of patients who are already in hospital to enable a Mental Health Act assessment to take place. We also seek to remove clause 50 from the Bill; we look forward to discussing that at the appropriate time on a future day in Committee.
I will now move on to clause 5 in its entirety. The grounds for detention provide decision makers with criteria that must be applied when deciding whether it is appropriate to detain, or to continue to detain, a person under the relevant sections of part II of the Mental Health Act, covering civil patients. The clause will replace the existing criteria, which the independent review of the Mental Health Act found were too vague, and will take forward changes recommended by the review. It will strengthen and clarify the criteria to require a risk of “serious harm” to justify detention. Consideration must also be given to the nature, degree and likelihood of the harm. For a patient to be detained for treatment under section 3, there must be a “reasonable prospect” of therapeutic benefit.
The code of practice already directs clinicians to consider the “nature”, “likelihood” and “severity” of harm. We believe it is right to formalise those considerations by putting them in primary legislation. We have not defined serious harm in the Bill. We will work with stakeholders to provide guidance on that in the code of practice. We are not seeking to raise the bar on detention, which could put patients and the public at risk. However, we think that when the serious decision is taken to deprive someone of their liberty, and potentially to treat them against their wishes, there needs to be consistent consideration of the potential risk of harm to a person or to others to justify that.
The revised risk criteria will not apply to part 3 patients. There are already tailored risk criteria for patients in the criminal justice system. Those are considered by the court and the Secretary of State for Justice, and allow for all relevant factors, including public protection, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 26 to 29 and clause 5 to the Committee.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here on day two in Committee. I will first address clause 5 and then the Government amendments.
The clause marks significant reform to the legal foundations of mental health detention in this country. At its core, the clause seeks to update the grounds for detaining individuals under the Mental Health Act. It will amend several critical sections—sections 2, 3, 5, 20 and 145—to ensure that detention is used only when absolutely necessary and in line with the principle of least restriction, which was put forward in the Wessely review and is now in the Bill.
Let me outline what the changes will do in practical terms, as the Opposition see it. Under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, “Admission for assessment”, detention will now be justified only if “serious harm” may occur to the “health or safety” of patients or others. The decision must weigh the “nature, degree and likelihood” of that harm, a much more structured and risk-based framework than previously existed. Under section 3, “Admission for treatment”, we will see a clearer threshold. Detention will be permitted only if “serious harm” may occur without treatment, if the treatment is necessary, if the treatment cannot be provided unless the individual is detained and, crucially, if appropriate treatment is available.
Section 5(4), on emergency hospital detention, will be updated to align with the same “serious harm” test, recognising that even urgent situations demand clear legal justification. Section 20, which governs the renewal of detention process, will be brought in line with the same standards, such that they apply not just once but every time detention is extended. That is an important safeguard. A statutory definition of “authorised person”, those empowered to detain, will be introduced in section 145, ensuring that such persons are appropriately trained and regulated.
Those changes respond to real and long-standing concerns. The 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act warned that our current criteria are too broad and that they allow for detention that is often unnecessary, sometimes prolonged and, in too many cases, distressing for patients and families. Clause 5 seeks to change that by grounding detentions in a clear, evidence-based assessment of risk and necessity.
The clause has significant advantages. It will introduce stronger safeguards against inappropriate detention and will shift the focus away from diagnosis alone and towards the actual risk of serious harm. It will offer greater clarity for professionals, giving them structured criteria for making decisions that are ethically and legally sound. It will enhance patients’ rights by aligning the law more closely with the principles of autonomy and proportionate care.
However, with every reform there are challenges, and we must not ignore them. The terms “serious harm” and “likelihood”, although essential, remain open to interpretation. We must ensure that the forthcoming code of practice offers clear, detailed guidance that minimises subjectivity and inconsistency in their application.
Furthermore, there is a question mark over public safety, which the Minister seemed to point to but which I want to explore a bit further. We have not tabled an amendment, but I am keen to understand how this works. Given that the definition is potentially ambiguous and in practice quite difficult to judge, has the Minister considered inserting the words “cumulative” or “escalating”? To be clear, this is a call not to water down those safeguards, but to shore them up with a safety net, so that this reform does not inadvertently trade off liberty against safety, especially in communities.
We need to ensure that we are not inadvertently introducing a real risk that someone, particularly someone on the margins of eligibility, may fall through the cracks. There are individuals whose behaviour is escalating and whose pattern of deterioration is known to services, but who do not yet meet the “serious harm” threshold at the time of assessment. I have seen this at first hand as a clinician—a picture that goes round and round. These are some of the most complex situations that one will ever have to deal with in one’s clinical career. The words “escalating” or “cumulative” may help to give further clarification to clinicians on the frontline.
For those on the margins, what consideration have the Government given to the notion of a duty for professionals to produce a risk management plan in any case in which detention is considered but not authorised, so that we do not simply assess and walk away, but assess and act in a community setting? That would not lower the threshold, but contextualise it. It would ensure that detention remains a measure of last resort, but not too late a resort.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about some of the challenges around the interpretation of the Bill. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan for the training of professionals so that there is consistency across the board?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is spot on about training. It is one thing to enshrine these measures in primary legislation; it is another thing to have the training and interpretation that go with them. One of the reasons that we have not tabled an amendment on the matter, as yet, is that there could be some concerns about what “cumulative” or “escalating” behaviour looks like. Ask any clinician and they will say that they have seen patients who are on the borderline and are struggling. It can be unclear whether they are within or outside the definition; they could be wavering between the two, given the state of their mental health. That is a real concern, but the broader pattern of identifying the picture of what is happening could be helpful and important.
One way to address the issue would be to review the data and legislation. Would the Government consider carrying out a review two years after the implementation of the Bill, specifically to look at the working of the legislation through the lens of public safety? I hope that there will be no concerns, but that would provide a backstop and a legal safety net. We do not want to wait another 40 years if there are changes that need to be made.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s request to the Government for a review two years after implementation. Does he agree that it needs to be cross-governmental? The Home Office and other bodies such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NHS will need to be involved.
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We heard on day one how these services interact, and that is completely correct. We need to look through the lens of public safety, because while we are quite rightly enshrining the autonomous nature of the patient as an individual, there is also the question of what we look at as a society. It includes the likes of local councils, mental health care and NHS care. Schooling could also be involved, as well as the judiciary and the Home Office. I think it is reasonable to ask the Government to look at that, in the light of recent high-profile cases, and say, “What are we doing? Does the legislation really do what we think it does?”
Clause 5 is a good step forward, but we must make sure that it is fit for purpose and that we have a review mechanism in place. I do not think that it necessarily needs to be in statute yet, but it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response. Conducting a review on such a change, through the lens of patient safety, would be very useful.
There is also the matter of resources, which we keep coming back to. Change in detention criteria will rightly push us towards community-based alternatives—that is the whole point of what we are doing—but unless those alternatives are properly resourced with staffing, crisis services, housing and follow-up care, we will risk replacing one form of system failure with another. I appreciate that the Secretary of State is committed to reporting each year to the House, but will the Government publish a timetable and framework to support the implementation?
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, training is also critical. Professionals need the tools and time to learn the framework. They need support, implemented in real time, often under pressure and in complex, high- stakes circumstances.
Clause 5 is a welcome and thoughtful step in modernising mental health law. It will strengthens patients’ rights, sharpen clinical practice and bring us closer to a system that balances safety, liberty and humanity. However, we must be mindful about the risk of delayed intervention. In borderline cases in which the threshold is not clearly met but concerns remain high, we must ensure that there is still a route to timely, compassionate support. Otherwise, we may swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, from the overuse of detention to the underuse of care.
On Second Reading, I said:
“There is little greater moral burden than deciding for someone who cannot decide for themselves where care ends and control begins.”
Clause 5 typifies that burden: we are deciding who should be detained and why. I said:
“Make no mistake, this is what this House is grappling with”,
and indeed it is what our Committee is now looking at in detail. I also said:
“Involuntary care should never be the first instinct or answer, but a resort to prevent harm to both the individual and those around them.”
I said that compassionate care demands precision not only in its delivery, but in its design. I concluded:
“Without precision, we simply have sentiment.”
I promised then, as I promise now, that
“we will endeavour to ensure that the Government’s sentiment becomes a commitment.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 850-851.]
That neatly sets the scene for discussing Government amendments 26 to 29.
Gregory Stafford
Before my hon. Friend moves on to the amendments, I want to press him on the point about training, which my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley brought up. I support the change to the thresholds for detention but, given that it is potentially quite a significant change, what level of training will be required? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have any suggestion about how long it will take to train the relevant professionals so that there is consistency when the Bill becomes law? Does he feel that there should be a period of cooling off or training time before this part of the Bill is implemented, so that the training can catch up?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend makes an important and poignant point. The Government have rightly stated that this change could take up to 10 years to implement, but we need to ensure that the most important safeguards are set out. Elsewhere, the Government have suggested that they will be in the code of practice. When we were discussing section 5 of the Mental Health Act and other issues, I said to the Minister that we need a constructive timetable, not only to know what the roll-out will look like but so that we can consult with the professions and ensure that they are able to deal with it.
Later, we will again discuss the interface between the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the changes that bring in new tests. That will be really important. We will also discuss the change of statutory safeguards for electroconvulsive therapy and changes to the statutory safeguards around who the second clinician will be—there is quite a feast of movements through this legislation. Make no mistake: that is what the country wants, but the Government must clearly set out some rationale for the timetable.
Unfortunately, the Opposition’s proposal for a costed plan was defeated. We wanted to set out some kind of concrete timetable over 18 months to ensure that we do not slip back, and to give the Government the flexibility to make the necessary cultural and legal changes. I hope that that addresses some of my hon. Friend’s concerns, but he was right to put that point to the Minister.
I oppose Government amendments 26 to 29, which would remove the reference to detention
“by a constable or other authorised person”,
and to delete the proposed definition of “authorised person”. I support the argument advanced powerfully in the other place by Baroness May, whose experience as a former Home Secretary gives her deep insight into the interaction between policing and mental health. Of course, it was under her premiership that the entirety of this discussion was progressed. I thank her for everything she has done, although I am not quite so thankful for the workload that it has created for me in my evenings and weekends. Her central message was clear: we must stop treating mental health as a policing issue and start delivering the right care from the right person in the right place. I wholeheartedly agree, as I am sure the Committee does.
I understand what the Government are trying to achieve. On the face of it, the amendments are technical. They seek to ensure that detention under the Bill is solely based on necessity where there is a risk of serious harm or the need for urgent treatment, and that it is not tied to who is doing the detaining. On paper that sounds reasonable, but in practice those changes will remove vital clarity and will risk baking in a system that has already failed too many people in mental health crisis.
Let us look at the problem with removing “authorised person”. The Bill, as amended in the Lords, wisely recognises the need to broaden the group of people who can respond to mental health incidents so that they include not just police officers, but trained and equipped professionals, mental health nurses, paramedics and approved mental practitioners—people who are qualified to care, not just to detain. The definition of “authorised person” in clause 5(7) ensures that only those with training competence and safety considerations are empowered to act, so it provides a framework for accountability, not a free-for-all. By removing the framework, the Government amendment would create a legal vacuum: it tells us that someone must be detained, but not by whom. In doing so, it would leave NHS trusts, police forces and local authorities with a lack of legal guidance and with a risk-averse default to the police.
I think we agree that the police should not be the first responders. As Baroness May has reminded us, and as many officers have told me, the police are routinely called out to mental health incidents, not because they are best placed to respond but because there is no one else available or authorised. That is neither fair to the police nor fair to the individuals in crisis. A police uniform can escalate distress. A custody cell is not a place of recovery. An officer guarding a patient in accident and emergency for 29 hours, as the Metropolitan police have reported, helps no one—not the patient, not the police and not the public. The 2019 College of Policing snapshot found that 95% of mental health-related calls did not require a police response. That is staggering. It underlines why we must build up the capacity and legal authority of clinical professionals, not erase them from the statute.
I turn to the Government’s argument and why it falls short. The Government’s case is that removing the phrase
“by a constable or other authorised person”
will de-emphasise the police and make the law more flexible. Ironically, however, removing the clarity about who may act risks re-entrenching police dominance in these scenarios, simply because no one else will feel legally empowered to intervene. The Government argue that the definition is unnecessary or potentially restrictive, but I say the opposite: a well-drafted enabling definition gives confidence, clarity and a lawful mandate for healthcare-led responses. This is not about excluding the police altogether. There will always be situations in which an immediate threat to life or serious violence requires a police presence, but that should be the exception, not the structure around which our mental health law is designed.
Gregory Stafford
I think, from what my hon. Friend has said and what the Minister said at the outset, that Members on both sides of the Committee want the same thing, which as far as possible is to keep the police out of the making of these decisions, unless of course—I made this point on Second Reading and was intervened on by the hon. Member for Ashford—someone with a mental health issue has a firearm or something like that. The clear point of dispute is about whether the phrase that was placed in the Bill in the other place achieves that. Would my hon. Friend not agree that someone who has served as Home Secretary and Prime Minister and the noble Lords, who have vast experience in healthcare over many years, have probably got the definition right, which is why the Government should support the wording currently in clause 5?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is right: we agree that this is not a place for the police unless there is an absolute sign of criminal intent. The problem is that what happens is a member of the public sees something, reports it to the police and, naturally, it is the police, the fire service or the paramedics who come forward. If a person is unsure about someone behaving in an irrational manner, which by definition someone with a mental health issue could well be doing, the likelihood is that they will call the police and the police will be the first responders. We know that they tend to be the fastest to respond.
Slightly widening and refining the definition of who can respond would allow us to build a framework and culture that might encourage a first responder—we often say that the AA is the fourth emergency service; it may well be that mental health services would be the fifth emergency service and could respond. That is what we need for service provision. The idea behind this is to try to crowbar the police out of that position, unless absolutely necessary, as my hon. Friend rightly says. Allowing a new framework would be good for safety and good for the police, because they would be freed up to do other stuff. More importantly, it would get the care as quickly as possible to the people who need it the most.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I think there is some agreement between us, in the sense that obviously a police officer is not necessarily best placed to deal with those who are in mental distress. Having spoken to my local police team, I know that they would much rather there were frontline mental health professionals with the capability to take a person to a place of safety that is not a police station. We will come on to that in relation to later clauses, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we already have some highly skilled professionals who are closely involved in these decisions in the form of approved mental health professionals? The vast majority of them—95%—are social workers. They play a very strong and excellent role, particularly to counterbalance the narrower clinical health perspective that there may sometimes be. Does he agree that, in a way, we already have in place some highly skilled individuals who are closely involved in making sure that these decisions are made in the best interests of the patient and the public, but also with clinical input?
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point about the range of people who can and do respond in such cases. The Opposition are not saying that is a problem; we want to support them by giving them the legal backing and framework to step up to be the first port of call. Unfortunately, by default it is always the police, because they are the only ones whose ability to deal with such situations is covered. The amendment aims to create a culture so that the people she mentions have the confidence to deal with them, and the accountability so that we can say, “The police should not be there first; it should be the first responders that we have.” We are starting to see cross-fertilisation; we are simply providing a legal framework that says that this should be the way forward by default and design, not an exception where people are working around the system.
I think we are on the same page here. It is about the nuances of how we do this, and whether it requires primary legislation. The House of Lords voted that it requires primary legislation, and the Opposition share that belief. That is why I am asking Government Members to reconsider when the amendment comes to a vote whether the balance is right because we would give people the security, legal certainty and ability to do exactly what they want to do, which is to care for patients, not worry about whether there will be some criminal side to the situation, and what the police interaction could be.
Anna Dixon
Obviously, the Lords amendment puts the role of the police into law. I think we agree that we do not want to have the police’s role enshrined in legislation. Over the implementation period for this important Bill, the idea is that community health services will be in place, including urgent response for those who find themselves in crisis. We need to remove this provision to make sure that the default position remains for community support.
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady points to the fact that the police are named, as they should be. Imagine if we took out the police completely—whowould then have the power to restrain, restrict and detain people under the Mental Health Act? That is the whole point of having the provision. What we are trying to do is refine and constrict the definition to make it clear for everyone in this country exactly who is entitled to do what. Emergency incidents could happen outside this House—would the police and mental health responder be there? That will come down to the clinical judgment of the 999 responder, the call handler and the clinician there, so I do not want to make it too restrictive. At the same time, we have to consider the evidence that is right under our nose, which is that 95% of the time the police are being called out inappropriately for mental health conditions. I guess that is the rub of what we are trying to sort out.
Our responsibility in this House is not only to write good law, but to enable better systems of care. That means ensuring that the law empowers the right professionals to act at the right time, and centring the needs of the individuals in crisis, not just managing risk from the top down. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider the amendments. Instead of deleting the definition of “authorised person”, let us work to try to strengthen and clarify it to support a wider, safer and compassionate response to mental health crises. Let us seize this opportunity to reset the balance between policing and care, which the police themselves are asking for and our continents desperately need.
Much was made of the amendment in the other place, and I am grateful to the Lords Minister, Baroness Merron, for writing to Baroness May with an explanation of her concerns about the changes. The letter is dated 3 June and a copy was kindly laid before this House and the Committee. It is worth working our way through some of the issues raised. I fully recognise the Government’s concerns within it, and I agree with the need for extreme care when legislating on the deprivation of liberty, but I express reservations about the Government’s decision to overturn the amendment.
According to the letter, the Government’s central concern seems to be the unintended extension of police powers. The Government argue in the letter:
“Your amendments to clause 5 would give the police additional powers under the Mental Health Act. We do not support extending police powers in this way, and we understand that the police do not support this extension either.”
That is also what the Minister has said in Committee. Respectfully, that is a mischaracterisation of the amendments. The original Lords amendments do not extend the powers of the police; they reflect current practice where the police are often involved in detaining individuals in mental health crises.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that, since detentions under sections 2, 3 and 5(4) of the Act often happen in clinical settings, are completed by consultants, psychiatrists and social workers, and do not involve police, we do not actually need police presence on these occasions?
Dr Evans
I bow to the hon. Member’s expertise on this; the problem is that all the evidence shows that the police are the first there. I would like to see much more of him and his colleagues being able to respond and carry this out. We are giving them the legal certainty to do so. That is the argument for making sure that we have codified safeguards around who is and is not able to make such decisions. At the moment, it is purely the police who are called out to these situations, but this gives us another legal weapon with which we could fight this inappropriate use.
The aim is to codify the safeguards around who can exercise detention, ensure accountability and, importantly, enable health-led alternatives to police detention. Are the Government confident that the decision does not leave a legal grey area around which profession or agency has the statutory power to detain, especially during urgent community or hospital-based crises?
On the authorised person category in the section 135 and 136 powers, the Government say in their letter:
“Extending these powers to ‘authorised persons’…could potentially lead to staff, patient and public safety issues.
That is precisely why the Lords amendment included a tightly defined category of authorised person, subject to the Secretary of State’s regulation, mandatory training and safety provision. The intent is to ensure that when a professional, such as a trained mental health nurse, is better placed to respond than the police, they can do so lawfully and appropriately.
The Government say:
“Section 135 and 136 powers have been designed for police officers who have specific training, equipment and access to rapid support”.
Many frontline NHS and social care professionals, including AMHPs, crisis team members and community psychiatric nurses, already respond to acutely distressed patients in highly volatile environments. They lack the police powers, but not the clinical expertise. The amendments would bring clarity and lawful backing to the situations they already manage. Take, for example, a mental health nurse in a community who arrives at a person’s home to conduct an urgent assessment. The individual is clearly experiencing psychosis, and is at immediate risk of self-harm. Under the current law, the nurse must call the police, delaying the care and potentially escalating the situation. Under the amendment, they could lawfully detain, provided they are authorised and trained.
There are also confusions over the emergency response roles. The Government letter states:
“There is a very real risk of confusion over who should respond in an emergency if multiple agencies have the same powers, which could lead to delays.”
That concern is valid, but confusion is far more likely under the current law, where roles are unclear and NHS professionals must sometimes act unlawfully or wait for overstretched police. A regulated and accountable authorised person category, established in law and detailed in the code of practice, would clarify responsibilities, not blur them. Have the Government done any modelling of the delays and safety risk caused by not empowering suitably trained healthcare professionals to act in urgent situations?
The letter also highlights concerns from stakeholders that this is
“a radical proposal with a number of serious and potentially dangerous consequences and should not be pushed through without proper consideration”.
These proposals were not developed in isolation; they were advanced in the House of Lords, where the former Mental Health Act reviewers, legal experts and mental health professionals carefully considered their scope. They are also consistent with the direction of the 2018 independent review, which emphasised reducing coercion, racial disparity and the overuse of police powers.
The “right care, right person” initiative already expects health professionals to step in, but—unless I stand corrected—the initiative is not underpinned by any legal reform. Without amending the Act, health staff are still expected to take on crisis care without the powers of protection that they need to safely or lawfully do so. How can we expect health-led responses to mental health crises without giving health professionals the power in law to act?
Turning to guidance and the code of practice, the Government say that they will issue further guidance on police handover protocols and the legal frameworks. While guidance is welcome, it is not a substitute for statutory reform. Guidance cannot grant powers to detain or protect professionals from liability. We can have legal clarity with this framework.
If the Government want to push ahead with removing the amendments, will the Minister consider committing to a formal consultation with NHS England, the AMHP leads, frontline staff and patients on creating a legally robust authorised persons role? Would he consider piloting models of community-based urgent response teams that include AMHPs and trained nurses with delegated powers? Would he legislate for police exit strategies in A&E and community crisis responses that are enforceable, not just guidance based? Given our discussion about new clause 24, there is clearly scope for a sensible piece of work in the grey area to improve the interface for patients, clinicians and police. I think that is one we can all agree on.
Gregory Stafford
I agree with my hon. Friend. I think we agree on both sides of the Committee that, where appropriate, police should not be the first responders to this issue, although, obviously, there will be situations where they should be. If the Government push ahead with removing the amendments, is there any indication in the Bill, or indeed elsewhere from the Government, of what they will do to achieve what Members on both sides of the Committee seem to want, which is to avoid, as far as possible, having the police as the detainers and responders? If there is nothing else, I cannot see why the Government would want to remove the amendments made by the noble Lords in the other place.
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the last Government, the “right care, right person” initiative was launched with the Humberside police force to try to ensure appropriate care, but that is an example in isolation.
One solution would be to include guidance in the codes of practice, but it would not have the statutory footing to allow that legal certainty, which is the concern. Another would be to include something in the annual statement that we will receive from the Government. We should work collaboratively to try to find a decent piece of work to look for the evidence base and build a delivery plan to help the police extract themselves from situations, when appropriate, and care givers to insert themselves. It is admirable to share a problem that is difficult not just in England but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I agree that the Government are right to proceed with caution, but caution is not the same as inaction, especially when lives are at stake and the law no longer reflects the reality of mental health care. The amendments are not about expanding police powers; they are about reducing the need for police involvement by giving others the lawful authority to act. Although maths may not be my strong point, I am not blind to the make-up of this Committee; I realise that the change will inevitably happen. I want to press the Minister on how he proposes to reduce the burden on the police to safeguard them from thousands of hours spent dealing with mental health crisis issues. In extreme cases, they are not appropriate responders.
This is the key issue to improve so many aspects of our society. We could improve the working life of the police, allowing them to do what they are paid to do, trained to do and passionate about: policing and protecting their communities. We could improve life for the public, because it would free up the police to tackle crime and keep them safe. Most importantly, we could provide the correct care to those patients at their biggest time of need. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government plan to achieve that.
Sojan Joseph
I rise to support the Government amendments, which will simply remove the words
“by a constable or other organised person”.
On Second Reading, I highlighted my concern about the amendments made to the Bill in the other place that sought to extend police powers of detention under sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act to other organised persons, including medical practitioners, approved mental health professionals, mental health nurses or doctors and further healthcare and social care professionals.
I know that the noble Lords who introduced the amendments intended to remove the need for the police to be present at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk. However, they would grant the police greater powers; as an unintended consequence, they would also apply to detentions under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act, where the police currently do not have power to intervene.
A section 2 application is completed by two doctors and a social worker, and the patient may already be in a clinical setting. Section 3 relates to somebody who is already receiving treatment or already has a known diagnosis in a clinical setting. Doctors’ powers extend to that section; the police currently do not have any role in completing a section 3 application. Section 5(4) provides nurses with a holding power for a patient who is already in the clinical setting, where the nurse believes that the patient is at immediate risk; again, the police have no role.
If we did not make the Government amendments, we would give more power to the police to get involved under those sections of the Mental Health Act and put more pressure on police services.
Gregory Stafford
I am interested in the hon. Member’s argument, but it seems to be entirely the opposite of the one he made when he intervened on me on Second Reading. He said then:
“Sections 135 and 136 of the current Mental Health Act give the police the power to break into someone’s property or detain somebody in a public place where there is the possibility of the involvement of weapons. Does the hon. Member think that health professionals would be able to manage those kinds of situations? Would the police not be the best people to deal with those situations?”—[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 815.]
In that intervention, the hon. Member was pressing for police involvement; now, he seems to be arguing that he wants to take the police out of these settings. I am a little confused by his stance.
Sojan Joseph
What the hon. Member read is absolutely right. I was talking about sections 135 and 136. I am talking here about sections 2, 3 and 5. I absolutely stand by what I said about sections 135 and 136, and I am happy to come to that. As a former mental health nurse, I certainly would not support giving the police greater powers under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act.
I am also opposed to the amendments passed in the other place because I believe that the extension of legal powers held by the police to other healthcare professionals would represent a major shift in the roles and responsibilities of healthcare and care professionals, placing significant additional pressure on the NHS and social care providers.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association are among the health and social care organisations that have warned against such an extension, saying that it is
“a radical proposal with a number of serious and potentially dangerous consequences”.
Those organisations also point out that the proposed extension has not been properly tested with relevant health and social care professionals and has been given minimal serious consideration during the eight years in which reform of the Mental Health Act has been under discussion.
The majority of assessment under the Mental Health Act already happens without police involvement. However, where the police may be required to make a detention, I know from my experience working in mental health that the presence of officers can often ensure that an otherwise risky situation remains contained and everyone remains safe.
Entering someone’s home without permission is fraught with huge risk and currently is done only with the assistance of police intelligence. Under section 135, health professionals ask the court for an order to remove somebody forcefully from their residence and the police use that order to do so; sometimes, they have to break in. That is the power that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth spoke to earlier. Without it, health and social care professionals would be expected to enter homes without police help, and without crucial intelligence that could ensure their safety. As Dr Lade Smith, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:
“It is well known that at times, people experiencing a mental health crisis cannot be safely reached and cared for without the assistance of the police. Delegating police powers without proper consultation or planning is likely to disproportionately affect those from minoritised backgrounds and would increase risk to patients and compromise the safety of others. It sets a dangerous precedent.”
I am also concerned that the amendments passed in the other place granting police powers to authorised persons risk damaging their therapeutic relationships with patients. They would have the effect of lessening clinicians’ ability to treat patients, and I fear that patients would be less likely to attend an appointment if they thought they might be forcibly detained by the clinician.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
Government amendments 26 to 29 risk undoing some of the good work done in the other place, where careful improvements were made to strengthen the Bill and ensure a more compassionate and effective response to mental health crises. I am concerned that by removing the words
“by a constable or other authorised person”
and deleting clause 5(7), which provides a clear definition of who the authorised persons are, we will open up ambiguity about who is permitted to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. This is not just a technical or drafting issue; it has very real consequences for the people involved.
I understand and support the principle of enabling more flexible and clinically led responses to mental health incidents. We all recognise that the police should not be the default option in every case. The amendments made in the Lords acknowledged that and broadened the group of people who could respond to mental health crises beyond police officers to trained and equipped professionals: mental health nurses, approved mental health professionals, paramedics and, crucially, someone trained and equipped to carry out detentions under the Act and who would not be put at unnecessary risk by doing so. “Trained and equipped”—that is the key point.
The definition of “authorised person” in the Bill as it stands makes it clear that those given such a serious responsibility must have the appropriate training and experience and must not be “put at unnecessary risk” when carrying out that role. That wording is important. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, said, it provides a framework of accountability, not a free-for-all. By removing that structure, the Government’s amendments will leave a legal vacuum. The law will say that someone must be detained, but not by whom. That uncertainty will create a risk that services will simply revert to defaulting to the police.
I stress again that that is not fair on the police, who are already under immense pressure. Yes, they are used to seeing people at their most vulnerable, but dealing with someone in a mental health crisis is a very particular challenge, and one that they might not be fully trained to manage. The College of Policing’s 2019 mental health snapshot found that almost 95% of police call-outs flagged as involving mental health did not actually require a police response, yet police officers continue to be sent out because the system lacks clarity and capacity elsewhere.
Baroness May, speaking from real experience as a former Home Secretary, made that very point in the other place. She said that police officers were being sent to mental health incidents for which they had no training or clinical expertise, and were being asked to make judgments that they simply were not equipped to make. She went on to say that
“the very essence of a police presence—somebody in the uniform coming to deal with them—could actually exacerbate their mental health situation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2025; Vol. 842, c. 1525.]
I would add that, for the individual experiencing a mental health crisis, being approached by the police may feel criminalising rather than supportive. It reinforces a justice-led response rather than a health-led one. That is not the direction in which we should be going.
Although I welcome the Government’s intention to offer more flexibility in emergency and clinical settings, we have to be careful about how we achieve that. Removing the wording inserted into the Bill will not create clarity; it will create confusion. In a system already under pressure, confusion tends to mean delay, risk aversion and inappropriate responses. Removing the specification will not free professionals; it will expose them, and it will expose patients to the possibility of being handled by someone without the right qualifications, which may worsen their condition or create a longer-term distrust of mental health services.
I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurances, both about who will be expected to carry out these detentions and about how we can ensure that they have the proper training, resourcing and protection. Without a clear definition of “authorised person”, we cannot be confident that those involved will have the right expertise to support extremely vulnerable individuals at times of acute need.
I want to touch briefly on the importance of early intervention and de-escalation. Situations involving mental health crises can often be tense, and support in the early moments can be critical. De-escalation is a vital skill; the presence of a calm, trained mental health nurse, for example, in those early moments can change the outcome of a person’s crisis. Having the right professional present—someone who can act without waiting for the police to attend—can be the difference between escalation and calm. The identity of the responder matters.
This is not just about outcomes, but about the experience of the individual. Removing the criminal justice framing from the outset is essential to delivering dignity and the right kind of care.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
There seems to be some circular talk about the level of risk that clinicians and medical professionals can be expected to shoulder. I notice that clause 5(7), inserted in the other place, specifies that they would
“not be put at unnecessary risk”.
Is there not an inherent risk involved in detaining people who need to be detained under the Mental Health Act? Those people are not in a position to give consent and quite often do not wish to be detained. By stipulating that the police will not be involved in situations or by making medical professionals the first responders, is there not a risk of putting them in harm’s way?
Aphra Brandreth
It is extremely important that people are not put at risk, and that is exactly the point I have been making. People need to be properly trained, and we need to set out who those individuals can be, rather than leaving ambiguity in the wording. The Government amendment will undo exactly the protection that the hon. Lady rightly points out.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making a clear point, but I want to add that there are clearly places and situations in which non-police professionals, such as mental health professionals, deal with extremely dangerous and violent patients. They are appropriately trained to do so. It is not in isolation that non-police public professionals are dealing with dangerous people. It is about the right situation, the right place and the right training.
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend helpfully expands on the points that I and other Opposition Members have been making. If we are not careful, the Government amendments will move us further away from the aim of a person-centred approach.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the amendments. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. The wording inserted in the other place struck a thoughtful balance. It allowed flexibility, but grounded it in clear criteria of training, safety and competence. Removing that definition will weaken the Bill. It will make it harder, not easier, to ensure that the right person is supporting someone at their moment of greatest need. We owe it to patients, professionals and the police themselves to get this right.
Gregory Stafford
The clause is a necessary reset—[Interruption.] Goodness, what a background noise! If only I had such a response to everything I said.
The clause is rooted in the central recommendation of the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, that the criteria for detention are too broad and being applied too inconsistently. Too often we hear stories of people being detained not because they pose a real and present danger, but because services are stretched, community alternatives are not available, or there is simply a lack of clarity on when detention is justified.
This clause is necessarily corrective. It raises the bar by introducing a clear and structured risk threshold that requires the possibility of serious harm to health or safety, rather than vague concerns or subjective impressions. The inclusion of terms such as “likelihood” and the focus on actual risk mark a clear move towards the evidence-based practice that we want to see and away from overreach.
For me, the key strengths of the clause include, first, a higher threshold for detention. Under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, detention for assessment is permitted only if serious harm may occur. That means that professionals must assess the nature and the degree of harm, as well as the likelihood, injecting rigour and proportionality into decision making.
The clause also clarifies the treatment criteria. Under section 3 of the Act, detention for treatment is allowed only if serious harm may occur without it and if treatment is necessary, and, crucially, it must be available. That prevents people from being detained without any therapeutic benefit, a concern that has long plagued the system. The clause also aligns measures across the Mental Health Act: the new threshold applies not only to the initial decision to detain, but to emergency detentions and renewals. That brings consistency and coherence across the different parts of the legislation.
The final key point among the strengths of the clause is the definition of the authorised person, which is vital. It ensures that those tasked with detention powers are properly trained and equipped to deal with the complex and often volatile realities of mental health crises. Whether a doctor, an approved mental health professional or a specially trained nurse, the provision ensures that detention is exercised by someone with relevant expertise, not by default by the police. Taken together, the changes significantly strengthen the legal framework around detention, reduce the risk of misuse and reaffirm the principle of least restriction, the idea that coercive care should be used only when no other alternative exists.
The problems I have with Government amendments 26 to 29 are as follows. The Minister proposes to delete references to
“a constable or other authorised person”
from the clause. On the surface, that may appear to be technical, but in fact I think it is a profound and problematic shift. The amendments would weaken the very safeguards that the clause is trying to strengthen. We must be careful about how we frame this.
The amendments risk undoing the clarity and purpose of the clause by making it ambiguous who can lawfully detain someone under the Mental Health Act. Instead of defining the responsibility clearly and ensuring that it is held by trained professionals, the amendments will strip the clause back to vague flexibility, with no guarantee that the right expertise is present in real-time decisions.
The power to detain and to move individuals to a place of safety, in particular under sections 135 and 136 of the Act, is largely restricted and falls under the responsibility of police officers. These provisions, while designed to protect the public, can often result in the criminalisation of people in acute mental health crises, even when there is no threat of violence or risk to others.
Furthermore, the clause as passed by the House of Lords would relieve police officers of responsibilities that fall outside their core expertise, while also reducing the stigma and trauma associated with police-led interventions. It would streamline the process, ensure that individuals are supported by professionals trained specifically in mental health care, and maintain police involvement only where there is a clear and present risk to safety. In doing so, it would significantly strengthen the system and place mental health crises more firmly within the domain of health rather than law enforcement.
Let me set out the key problems with Government amendments 26 to 29. First, I think that they will blur the lines of responsibility. The clause rightly states that detention must be carried out by a constable or other authorised person, namely someone who has been designated and trained to carry out this high-stakes task. The Government amendments will remove that requirement. In doing so, they risk creating confusion on the ground about who is permitted to act. In a moment of crisis, ambiguity costs time, and time costs lives.
Jen Craft
On clause 5(4), the amendment in the other place inserted the phrase
“by a constable or other authorised person”
which relates specifically to the phrase
“unless the patient is immediately restrained from leaving the hospital”.
What the hon. Gentleman describes as a level of ambiguity in the subsection allows that to be done by people who are not necessarily listed as an authorised person, such as a medical practitioner. I think we would all agree that we would not expect to see a nurse, doctor or other clinician immediately and physically restraining a patient, and that when a police constable is not available, other people, such as hospital security staff, can carry out the task. The clause says, “immediately restrained”. The specification in the list of words proposed in the other place can leave people at risk of harm, particularly clinicians.
Gregory Stafford
I confess that I do not entirely follow the hon. Lady’s argument. My understanding is that the people she has listed—for example, hospital security staff—are not covered at the moment, so I do not think that that is the case. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, there are situations, in a number of settings, in which mental health professionals act in the capacity of restraining. With the correct and appropriate training, which is what I think all Opposition Members want, I do not think that the issue that the hon. Member for Thurrock is raising would necessarily arise. Having said that, if she really feels that the wording needs to be tweaked, I look forward to seeing and potentially supporting her amendment to the subsection, and I hope she tables it.
The second key problem is the risk of returning the burden to police officers. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House in the debate, and from police forces up and down the country for years, that the police do not have the expertise, training or capacity to be the first responders to mental health emergencies. Clause 5 finally reflects that reality, helping to move the response from law enforcement to healthcare. The Government amendments would muddy that distinction. They would result in the police once again becoming the default responders—not because it is right but because it is unclear who else is meant to act.
Thirdly, the amendments introduce legal and safe-guarding risks. Without a clear definition of who can detain, one risks inconsistency, poor practice and potentially unlawful deprivation of liberty. The amendments offer no alternative safeguards—just the deletion of the existing ones. That is not reform; it is abdication of responsibility. Finally, they undermine the spirit of the Bill. The Bill aims to modernise mental health legislation by making it more humane and effective, and more rooted in health than enforcement. The amendments point in the opposite direction. They strip away clarity, increase reliance on the police and risk compounding trauma for those already in crisis.
It is not just about legislative precision; it is about protecting people. When someone is in acute mental health crisis, they are at their most vulnerable. Turning up with police officers, sirens and handcuffs does not calm the situation; it escalates it. It creates trauma, damages trust and can lead to long-term disengagement from mental health services. Clause 5 offers us a path out of that pattern. It allows approved professionals—such as paramedics, mental health nurses and crisis practitioners —to intervene early, with care and dignity. It does not exclude the police, where there is a genuine risk to safety, but it rightly repositions them as the last resort, not the first response. The Government amendments may be well intentioned, but they threaten to unravel that balance. We cannot allow vague flexibility to become a smokescreen for inadequate planning or under-resourced services.
If the Minister pushes his amendments to a vote, and, as the parliamentary maths suggests they will, those amendments pass, what will he do to sort out the problem that we, on both sides of the House, have talked about today? He is currently planning to keep the status quo, which we all seem to agree is not appropriate. At least we and our noble Friends in the other place have attempted to improve the situation. What will he and his Department do?
The clause is part of a broader rethinking of how we response to mental health need. It supports community-based care. It pushes for better training. It honours patient autonomy and it places the right people—clinicians, not constables—at the centre of care delivery. We all want a system where people in distress are met with compassion, not criminalisation. Clause 5 helps us to get there. The Government’s amendments drag us backwards. Clause 5 is one of the most thoughtful and necessary parts of the Bill. It raises standards, reduces harm and finally begins to close the gap between what the Mental Health Act allows and what good mental health care demands.
Stephen Kinnock
I will touch on the questions that have been asked on cumulative and escalating behaviour, on having a review of public safety and on the training plan. The details will be provided for in a mixture of the code of practice and the annual written ministerial statement.
The code of practice will be based on consulting both those who use the new criteria, such as clinicians, approved mental health professionals and members of the tribunal and, then, of course, on the other side, those with lived experience, service users, families and carers. It will be shaped and drafted on that basis. It will then go out to public consultation and will be laid before Parliament so that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate it. It will be a comprehensive and detailed development of the code of practice, and will address the issues around cumulative and escalating behaviour, the public safety issues and training.
On cumulative and escalating, it is worth noting that under the reforms in both the Bill and the current Act, clinicians have the power to detain on the basis of a risk of harm that may occur, not that already has or is happening at the time. That power already exists.
Dr Evans
Maybe it is my clunky naivety as someone stepping into the legal statutory framework, but I was hoping the Minister would guarantee he could take that away to look at with the team. I know from my clinical experience and from speaking to colleagues that it is one of the hardest things to measure and look for. Later, we will discuss areas where there are good case examples of people who have shown the problem of escalating behaviour that is missed by the authorities. This might be a clumsy and clunky way of trying to highlight that point, which is why we have not yet come up with amendments, but I would appreciate the commitment to look further at that when the Government takes the point away. It is really important to make sure we can give clinicians more certainty around what this looks like.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention, but I simply repeat that under both the Act and this Bill, which will reform that Act, clinicians have the power to detain on the basis of a risk of harm that may occur, not one that has already or is happening at the same time, so, in my opinion, this power already exists. What is the point of over-embroidering and adding more questions and considerations when those questions and considerations are already answered? Let us just try and streamline things, please, and make things simple rather than complicated.
We had a lengthy debate on the amendment. Let us just boil this point down to its essence: the majority of mental health incidents are managed without police involvement. Approved mental health professionals have powers under section 115, section 6 and section 137 to enter a person’s home and to assess and convey said person to a hospital. That is the first point: all the concerns that have been raised by the Opposition are very clearly addressed by the powers that already exist for AMHPs.
We support “right care, right person”. Policing is of course operationally independent, and those “right care, right person” arrangements are planned and developed through detailed multi-agency partnerships on the ground. We need to be pragmatic and recognise that “right care, right person” is the right way forward. The Government are committed to it, so let us let the practitioners, the experts and the police on the ground work in a practical and pragmatic way to address these incidents as they occur. In many cases, it is simply impossible to legislate for these incidents. By definition, every person experiencing trauma experiences it for different reasons, and it manifests itself in different ways, so top-down micromanagement of that would be deeply counterproductive and unhelpful.
Officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and in the Home Office have engaged with senior representatives of the police on these amendments in great detail. I can give the Committee an 100% assurance that the police do not support an extension of their powers to sections 2, 3 and 5. I am therefore baffled by the fact that Opposition Members appear to be claiming that they know better than the police whether their powers should be extended.
Let us stop trying to pretend that we have the police’s expertise. Let us please take a pragmatic approach to this. The police do not want an extension of these powers, and the Home Office is clear that that is the case. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of the lengthy debate that we have just had. On that basis, I thank hon. Members for their interventions and I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 6, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) Any person subject to a community treatment order must be informed orally and in writing at the time of the making of the order of their right to an independent mental health advocate under section 130A of this Act.’”
The amendment would ensure that people who are to be subject to a community treatment order would receive information about their right to advocacy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 30.
Clause stand part.
Zöe Franklin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Our amendment would ensure that people who are subject to community treatment orders receive information about their right to advocacy. People under CTOs should not miss out on advocacy because they were not aware. CTOs can have a significant impact on how people are able to live their lives, and ensuring that those who are subject to them are effectively represented is crucial. I am delighted that advocacy is a crucial part of the Bill, but this seems something of an oversight.
Not being aware of mental health advocacy could lead to a damaging lack of autonomy and voice for an individual. This simple change would ensure that people receive the support to which they are entitled. People in this situation are in acute mental distress, so the idea that they must actively seek out information on advocacy seems an unfair burden that will make the welcome provisions around mental health advocates far less effective.
We also need to be aware that CTOs have consistently been shown to be a point of disparity in care for black and minority ethnic groups. Clearly pointing towards an advocate may help to alleviate that and ensure that the patient is adequately supported on leaving the hospital.
Is the Minister satisfied that people subject to CTOs will have adequate access to advocacy under the Bill? Is he satisfied that information on rights to mental health advocates will be clear enough? My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are concerned that the answer to those questions is no, which is why we tabled the amendment.
Dr Evans
I rise to speak to clause 6 and Government amendment 30. Clause 6 will make important amendments to conditions for community treatment orders under the Mental Health Act. CTOs are a tool that allows certain detained patients to receive ongoing treatment in the community rather than in hospital, providing continuity of care and supporting recovery outside institutional settings. Since their introduction in 2007, they have offered a mechanism to maintain contact with mental health services and prevent relapse while balancing the patient’s right to live more freely.
However, CTOs have not been without controversy. There is concern about their overuse and their disproportionate effect on black and ethnic minority patients. There are also a number of questions about the evidence for their effectiveness in reducing relapse or readmission. Moreover, concerns about coercion and the infringement of patient autonomy have been raised repeatedly. The 2018 independent review recommended tightening their use. Some also argue for going further by abolishing them completely.
Clause 6 seeks to address many of those concerns. It will introduce stronger safeguards, clear risk-based criteria and a maximum 12-month duration to prevent indefinite or inappropriate use. It will mandate patient involvement through consultation and regular review, promoting shared decision making. Accountability is enhanced by aligning CTOs with a code of practice and introducing external oversight. Crucially, CTOs will now be used only when there is a clear and necessary risk, focusing on clinical need and safety.
Challenges remain. The new requirements bring complex administration and an increasing workload for clinicians. Despite reforms, CTOs remain a form of compulsory treatment, raising concerns about ongoing coercion. Their success depends heavily on the availability of community services, which are not always adequately resourced. Finally, terms such as “serious harm” may be open to interpretation, risking inconsistency. To unpack all that, we must take a closer look.
Clause 6 rightly seeks to update and clarify the legal framework governing CTOs to ensure that their use is proportionate, justified and consistent with evolving standards of care and risk management. It does so primarily by aligning the grounds for making and renewing a CTO with the new, more precise risk criteria for detention. It specifies that a CTO should be made only if there is real risk that
“serious harm may be caused to the health or safety”
of a patient or others without treatment, and if that treatment is necessary given
“the nature, degree and likelihood of the harm”.
Again, there is an argument about the definition of “serious harm”, and the same discussion as the one we had under clause 5 about escalation of behaviour or cumulative concerns applies here.
In the light of that discussion, it might be helpful if the Minister clarified the interface between CTOs and grounds for detention. Is there scope for the code of conduct to cover the management of risk, both to the public and to patients themselves, across both? Given the emphasis placed on real risk of serious harm, clause 6 aligns CTOs more clearly with the threshold for detention, with the aim of reducing the inappropriate use or overuse of CTOs, which is much more welcome. It will help to safeguard and protect patients from unnecessary restrictions on their liberty, while maintaining the ability of a responsible clinician to act decisively when there is genuine risk.
Sojan Joseph
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that CTOs help to keep people out of hospital so that rather than having long-term admissions, they can live in the community and in their own house, and that clinicians can recall patients to hospital if they are not complying with the agreed treatment?
Dr Evans
Spot on. The hon. Gentleman will have used them far more than I ever have, and that was exactly the point of them when they were brought in in 2008. The reason they have been so contentious is their misuse, misapplication and ongoing use. That is what we are trying to highlight. With clause 6 the Government are trying to streamline their use.
That leads me neatly on to why the Lords introduced clause 6(3), which Government amendment 30 would remove. It is about how to ensure that there is adequate oversight so that people do not remain on CTOs in perpetuity or, more likely, have them applied inappropriately. Concerns have been raised about racial disparities in the use of CTOs—particularly for black men, but there is also work to be done on those from other communities who find themselves on CTOs. The hon. Gentleman is right: that is the ethos behind ensuring that we push people to community care. The problem is how to set that against the legislation on CTOs and how to provide the resources to enable an appropriate setting for that care.
Sojan Joseph
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is more an issue of practice than of the law itself?
Dr Evans
Yes. As the Minister pointed out on the Committee’s first day, legislation sets the culture. One the main reasons for the Wessely report was the racial disparities that had been found. We still have to look into the cause and effect of that, but one of the big markers was that CTOs were increasing indefinitely and seemed to hit certain communities disproportionately, without there being a full understanding of why. That was why in the House of Lords some argued that we should get rid of CTOs completely. The Opposition do not agree with that; we agree that clause 6 is important and that CTOs serve a purpose, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman explains so eloquently. The emphasis is on getting people into community treatment where we think it will be better for them, but ensuring that CTOs are not an undue burden on clinicians or patients and are not used inappropriately.
Clause 6(3), introduced in the Lords, sets out a maximum duration of 12 months for CTOs, after which an extension would require thorough review. That process would demand consultation with the patient, their nominated persons and relevant mental health professionals, and the written agreement of a qualified psychiatrist. That multi-layered review process is vital to ensure that any extension is based on clear therapeutic benefit and necessity rather than routine or bureaucratic inertia. Moreover, the requirement of regular reviews every six months to extend CTOs would further strengthen oversight and accountability. The involvement of tribunals, which may recommend variations or terminations, would add yet another layer of protection for patients’ rights, as the Government and Opposition both acknowledge.
While the reforms are, on the whole, positive, we must remain vigilant. The consideration of risks must be applied carefully and consistently to avoid unintended consequences such as deterring clinicians from using CTOs when they are genuinely needed.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I do not know whether the Minister has ever run a company that was approaching either administration or insolvency, but had she, she would know that a number of incredibly onerous and important duties are placed on the directors of such companies, which are literally minute by minute, in terms of them being shown to be acting responsibly. That can include, potentially, having multiple board meetings during a day, which are minuted, in order to revisit the “going concern” statement that the company does indeed have sufficient resources to meet its obligations as they fall due.
The penalties for failing to act responsibly and in accordance with the Insolvency Act 1986 in such circumstances can include being barred as a director of any company by the Secretary of State for a number of years, whereas the jeopardy in this Bill is possibly losing the ability to own a football club or to be an officer thereof. On the basis that we can all become millionaires or start-up billionaires and buy a football club, it is very concerning that we are putting in law the ability to override the directors of said companies’ obligations under the Insolvency Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government have taken any legal advice on the specific question about the potential conflict between obligations on directors under the Insolvency Act and obligations on owners and officers under the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I will respond to the points made by the shadow Minister and then come to those from the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The appointment of an administrator would not delay a club entering administration, as that is a separate process from the appointment of a specific administrator. My officials have met both relevant teams in the Insolvency Service and the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that the provisions in the Bill do not impinge on the existing insolvency processes. That speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne.
As for the shadow Minister’s other questions on precedent, special administration regimes exist for various purposes, such as the water utilities or energy suppliers. They have distinct processes for entering administration. The provision in the Bill does not go as far as that. Ideally, the provision will not need to be used frequently, if at all, but if it is, it will look to ensure that fans can feel more confident than they do now. It works alongside the requirements but it still stands alone, so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Duty not to relocate without approval
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 48, page 40, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) if the arrangements would represent a significant upheaval of the connection between the fans of a club domiciled in England and Wales and the club (taking into account the following non-exhaustive factors: proximity to home ground, proximity to other clubs’ grounds, journey time for fans and any other factors that the IFR deems relevant) the club’s fans have actively approved the arrangements.
(4A) In order for the Regulator to be satisfied with subsection (4)(b), a regulated club must take reasonable steps to establish that the majority of the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales do not consider the arrangements to constitute significant harm to the heritage of the club.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Incorporation of heritage restrictions in Articles of Association—
“(1) A regulated club must, within the time limit, ensure that the requirements in sections 48(4A) and 49(1) are incorporated into its Articles of Association.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the time limit is the period of one year from the day on which this section comes into force, or such other period of time as the Regulator may direct in relation to a particular regulated club.
(3) Subsection (1) is fulfilled if the club’s Articles of Association provide for even greater fan consultation than sections 48(4A) and 49(1) require.”
Mr Betts
It is good to have you back in the Chair with us this afternoon, Ms Butler—I am sure you are happy to be here. We are moving to further deliberation on the issue of consultation, in connection with the movement of grounds and the importance of the fans’ views. One issue is around not the desire or intention to stop clubs moving grounds at all costs, but ensuring that if ground movement happens, the fans’ interests are clearly taken into account. It is not to stop the Everton move, a little way down the road in Liverpool; it is to stop the Wimbledon move to Milton Keynes. That is what this is about—the fact that a club could be uprooted.
I have wandered around parts of London for many years, seeing Wimbledon play at various grounds. I think they played at Charlton for a time, and probably also at West Ham—they certainly moved to different places. I think Brighton played in Gillingham for a time as well. Those were temporary moves, but they should have been stopped in the first instance by not letting the club owner sell the ground. For Wimbledon, it was simply a move that took no account of where fans live or their loyalty to the club. It operated a bit like an American franchise system: “I’ve got the ownership of the club. I can move it where I want.” That is what happens in football in the States. We do not want it to happen here.
Amendment 91 is an attempt to add certain criteria when the regulator is looking at the potential to approve a transfer of grounds, including the proximity to the current home ground and the club’s other grounds, where fans live and how far they have to travel. I suppose Manchester United could locate almost anywhere because they have fans, they would claim, all over the world, and Man City fans would claim that there are more Man United fans outside Manchester than in it. But those are internal rivalries that we should not get into here. The reality for most clubs is that they have a local fanbase, and that should be taken into account before any move is deemed acceptable.
Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment’s wording, I hope she might recognise that in reaching those decisions, the regulator must seriously take account of fans’ views—not just the view, “We don’t want to move; we’ve always been here,” but, “We don’t want to move because they’re trying to locate us 100 miles away and we simply can’t get to home games on that basis.” I hope that the Minister might think about that.
New clause 14 aims to get clubs to write into their articles of association the issues in the Bill that they have to take account of—the heritage restrictions—to ensure that they are firmly embedded in how the club operates.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I hope that everyone is appropriately refreshed after the lunch break. I will not seek to go to VAR to rehash any of the debates we had before lunch, but we have great sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. We also believe that fans should have a strong say if clubs seek to move ground, as we have debated. The obvious questions, which we will come to in the next set of debates, are about what fan consultation and approval would look like. I know that that will be part of our heritage discussion in a moment, so I will not proceed on that now.
In thinking about some of the hon. Gentleman’s examples—Wimbledon being the most obvious one—I recall that as a teenager, or a bit younger, I would watch Wimbledon play at Crystal Palace, at Selhurst Park. They were the Crazy Gang in south London at that point, and they would often play there. So I understand his point, especially about the move to Milton Keynes and the controversy that that caused. As he highlighted, thankfully, we have not had too many examples that are similar to the American franchise system, where, in the National Football League, the Raiders have moved a number of times over the years, to different cities, depending on the financial attraction of each state.
Beyond the Man United and Everton examples, which we have discussed, there are other clubs who have moved. The one I first think of, which is closest to where I am from, is the Arsenal move a number of years ago from Woolwich Arsenal in south-east London to Islington. It is an interesting point, because a lot of the fans in south-east London are still strong supporters of Arsenal because of their generational links. For example, my brother-in-law’s grandfather was an Arsenal fan, so he is an Arsenal fan. The London example is probably not the best one, because it is simple to argue that fans can get across London fairly easily. It would be more dramatic if a club were being moved to the other end of the country, which is the point he is making—he is nodding in agreement.
I will be interested to know how the Minister and the Government view the amendments and how this issue might impact the regulator’s operations. I have a lot of sympathy for the amendments, and I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response.
Stephanie Peacock
Welcome back to the Committee after lunch, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for tabling the proposals, which seek to strengthen the protections on club heritage. The safeguarding of football heritage will be a key priority for the regulator, and there are a number of provisions in the Bill to uphold that key objective. It is vital that fans can have their voices heard at their clubs, especially regarding key heritage assets that can play a significant role in community identity and history.
That is why, as we will discuss in relation to clause stand part, clause 48 requires clubs to consult their fans and have regard to their views on a proposed relocation of a home ground. It is also why the regulator will determine whether the relocation will result in significant harm to a club’s heritage. This is not a binary decision, however, and in lots of cases will require a holistic approach and for the regulator to consider a number of factors, including not just the views of current fans, but the club’s history and the ability of fans to get to the ground. We would expect the regulator to engage and consult fans of the club, because it would be necessary to do so to ascertain the impact on club heritage. As the shadow Minister touched on, we will discuss this further in a little bit.
Amendment 91 would require the club to take reasonable steps to establish the views of the majority of supporters, rather than allowing the regulator to take the multifaceted approach that the Government think is best suited to the nuanced issue of club heritage. The importance of fan voices being heard is why the regulator spells out a number of protections for heritage assets, such as the home brand and home shirt colours, among others. Any breach of these duties would qualify as a relevant infringement by the club. Although we expect that the regulator will take an advocacy-first approach, a range of sanctions will be available.
Although the Government understand that the intention behind new clause 14 is to further entrench these duties, this legislation has been designed so that the duties apply across the clubs, with the regulator ensuring compliance. Amending articles of association can be resource-heavy and require shareholder agreement. It also does not guarantee that there will be compliance. This is not something that the Government see as an appropriate or necessary step to require all clubs to take. Instead, the Bill will protect fan consultation through other means. For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendments.
Mr Betts
I thank the Minister for the reply—I think. That was a bit of a reply about new clause 14 but she did not really address amendment 91 and the regulator being required to take account of factors such as relocation over distance and where fans live. In some ways, I think that is the strongest part of this discussion, because it is the thing that worries fans the most.
Stephanie Peacock
I talked about taking a holistic approach, and I said that the regulator must consider a number of factors—not just the current views of fans but the club’s history and how fans get to the ground. I acknowledge some of the examples that my hon. Friend has given, and I was really pleased to visit the new Everton stadium a few months ago. We obviously recognise that sometimes it is very legitimate, and other times it is not. That is why we have gone for the holistic approach.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, and I have obviously drawn attention to some of them in my remarks. That is why we do not want to be prescriptive; we want the regulator to be able to take a holistic, case-by-case approach.
Stephanie Peacock
It was. I gave some examples in my contribution about history—
Mr Betts
I think we just about got there with some assurance that the regulator would take these factors, and others, into account in reaching a decision. As the Minister said, it is a holistic decision, but one that needs to respect the interests of fans. The idea that fans can travel 100 miles to watch a home game is nonsense, but unfortunately, that nonsense has come to pass in some cases.
On that basis, I will not push the amendment to a vote, but it is crucial that we never get to a position where the wording in the Bill is not sufficient to ensure that the regulator takes the interests of fans into account in this respect. 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
Clause 48 places a duty on clubs not to relocate from their home ground without approval from the regulator. As we just discussed, home grounds play an important role in the history of a club and are often the club’s most valuable asset. These grounds are where many thousands of fans watch their teams play every weekend. Relocating them to areas that have no connection to the heritage and history of a club can have a significant impact on those supporters and the local area, as we saw when Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East just spoke about.
The impact of a home ground relocation on fans and the club is why we are legislating for the regulator to pre-approve any proposal in that regard. As subsection (4) of the clause sets out, the regulator must be satisfied that the proposed relocation would not “undermine the financial sustainability” and significantly harm the heritage of the club. This Government have added a requirement for the regulator to be satisfied that the club has taken
“reasonable steps to determine the views of… fans”
and taken those views into account.
The Government do not want to stifle development where it brings value and aligns with the heritage of the club. The clause makes the important and necessary recognition of the vital role that home grounds play in communities and adds an extra layer of protection to them while leaving room for clubs to evolve and continue to develop. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Duty not to change crest, home shirt colours or name without approval
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 49, page 40, line 31, at end insert—
“(1A) A regulated club must notify the IFR if it is considering making any material changes under subsection (1) and the IFR must monitor the reasonable steps taken to independently establish that the changes are supported by a majority of the club’s fans.”.
This amendment would require the IFR to take steps to independently oversee a club’s fan consultation process on the material changes specified.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 92, in clause 49, page 40, line 33, leave out
“approved by the Football Association”
and insert
“supported by a majority of the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales.”.
Amendment 111, in clause 49, page 40, line 33, at end insert
“and a majority of the club’s fans”.
Mr Dillon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. Clause 49 is an important part of the Bill, particularly if we look at recent history. We saw Cardiff City unilaterally changing the colour of their kit and the Leeds United club badge redesigned using something similar to Microsoft Paint. All that was done without consultation or agreement with fans. Both those decisions were met with overwhelming negative reaction from football fans.
Our amendment would allow for fans to be properly consulted before such irresponsible and poorly supported changes even see the light of day. The regulator should be responsible for ensuring that the consultation of fans on such changes is independently observed in a fair and transparent process. In this morning’s debate, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East raised the point about what consultation and fan engagement mean. This amendment tries to get to that in some respect.
It would be all too easy for some clubs to hand-pick a small group of fans that they know will agree with them and make an announcement claiming overwhelming support for a change. If the regulator is able to observe the process, fans can be reassured in the knowledge that the proposals will be given proper scrutiny and challenging views will be heard and considered.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Can the hon. Member explain what the process the football regulator should go through would look like? The amendment does not specify any standards for what acceptable oversight of the consultation process would be.
Mr Dillon
We are happy to put the onus on the regulator to create a process by which it can reassure itself that a full consultation process has been undertaken. That consultation process could look different for different teams. A Premier League club has a country-wide fan base and a large amount of fans to engage with, whereas a smaller club might have a regional fan base and a smaller number of fans to engage with, so a different consultation method may be appropriate. We would be happy for the regulator to have that in its purview.
Mr Betts
I just want to ask a simple question: why has “the Football Association” suddenly appeared at this point in the Bill? It has not been part of the requirements on the regulator until now. If I am right, it was not in previous iterations of the Bill—I may be wrong. I would have thought that the view of fans is most important. The FA does excellent work on many issues in football, not least trying to engage with England fans, but in this respect, are the fans of the club not more important?
Mr French
Clause 49 introduces a duty on regulated clubs to safeguard key aspects of what the Bill defines as club heritage. This specifically relates to changes in a club’s name, its badge and its home shirt colours—things that may seem cosmetic to the outsider, but which football fans know are part of the heart and soul of a club.
Whether it is the famous black and white of Newcastle United or the immense history of Deepdale in Preston, these things mean more than just the colour of the top or where people watch football. They are integral parts of footballing communities. They symbolise membership of something bigger than oneself. The club colours, the club badge and the home ground are all ways in which fans identify themselves as being part of a footballing family. They must be protected.
This clause is an important recognition in statute that football clubs are not just commercial entities, but cultural institutions, symbols of community identity and civic pride. As such, changes to these heritage elements should not be made casually or without due regard to those whose lifelong support gives clubs their very meaning, often across generations.
We welcome the inclusion of clause 49, which we believe is essential, but we do not believe it goes far enough. That is why we tabled amendment 111.
Mr French
Yes, I am happy to and will come on to that point. Amendment 111 would require the majority of fans to approve any such changes to a club’s official name, its badge or its home shirt colours, not just to support them. “Support” can be vaguely defined. It can be skewed by a few loud voices or specific interest groups, rather than being a genuine exercise in democracy. While consultation is important, it is ultimately no substitute for consent.
Football clubs are, by their very nature, multi-generational institutions. Most are older than the companies or corporate vehicles that now own them and some are even older than the Labour party that now seeks to impose this regulator. They existed before many of their current directors were born and will, we hope, outlast all of us.
The badge on the shirt is not simply a badge: it is a symbol of place, of pride, of glory and heartbreak, of a historic past and a hopeful future. The name of a club is not simply branding: it is geography, history and memory all in one. And the home shirt, whether it is red, claret, blue or black and white, is more than a colour scheme—I apologise if I missed any; orange for Wolves, maybe, but I am sure hon. Members get the point. It is part of the club’s identity, part of the community’s fabric.
When clubs change these things, particularly when they do so without the blessing of their supporters, they do more than upset tradition. They erode trust and sever the cultural connection that keeps that team and the English game alive. Let us not forget that when Cardiff City’s owner unilaterally changed their home shirt from blue to red, the backlash was enormous, because it was not Cardiff’s colour. Cardiff’s owners, much like the electorate, came to regret switching from blue to red pretty darn quickly. Will the Minister confirm whether clause 49 would prevent what happened at Cardiff or whether such a change could still be pushed through after a period of consultation, however superficial?
The clause imposes a duty on clubs to consult fans before making changes to heritage elements. That is better than nothing, but is quite a low bar. We have all seen what consultation can look like in practice—a web form, a vague email or a one-off survey. Then the changes proceed regardless of overwhelming opposition, with clubs claiming that consultation has been completed.
I think most hon. Members would agree that that is not meaningful engagement and it certainly does not reflect the degree of ownership that supporters rightly feel over the identity of their home club. That is why we support the amendment to move the requirement from consultation to majority fan approval—that is, in other words, a vote, or a similarly binding expression of fan will, overseen through whatever supporter representation structure the club has in place. Will the Minister set out what the Bill actually means when it states,
“the club has taken reasonable steps to establish that the changes are supported by a majority of the club’s fans in England and Wales.”?
Lincoln Jopp
The shadow Minister is making a completely reasonable amendment. We have the emblem, colours and name. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the Minister explained why the name has been taken out for different treatment from the emblem and the colours?
Mr French
I am sure that the Minister will have heard that contribution from my hon. Friend and will be able to pick up on that in her comments. He is right to identify that such a distinction has been made in the Bill.
What does this mean? For example, will an hour-long Twitter poll on what a club should do be sufficient? We have seen how clubs have sought to use X in some quite funny ways at times, but on something as serious as this, we need proper consultation. Instead, does the Minister expect that clubs will engage in a full, proper and open consultation with their fans, such as one that includes a call for evidence, votes on different proposals and genuine engagement from the clubs themselves? Otherwise, this all risks just being for show, rather than real consultation.
Why stop at just consultation? If a proposed change is sensible, justifiable and supported by a club’s reasoning, why would the club not be able to win over the majority of its fans, if the fans agree it is in the best interests of the club? Why are the Government, in this Bill’s drafting, afraid of allowing fans to have a real and final say on these matters? This is not about allowing fans to micro-manage a club; it is about recognising that the symbols, colours and names of clubs are all held in trust, not owned in a transactional sense.
Football club owners are, in truth, temporary stewards. Their role is not to reshape the soul of a club but to protect it and hopefully strengthen it before passing it on. Far too often we have seen the reverse: owners who arrive with branding ideas and marketing consultants, determined to reshape the club’s visual identity to fit a certain commercial strategy, often with little or no understanding of the local footballing tradition in that community. Supporters have had to campaign, protest and plead to get what should have been theirs almost by birthright: a say in the symbols of their club. Does the Minister agree that clause 49, if limited to just consultation, risks becoming just a tick-box exercise, particularly in clubs without strong fan representation models in place?
There is a precedent for this kind of requirement. In Germany, the so-called 50+1 rule ensures that fans retain majority voting rights over key aspects of club identity and operation. In Spain, the socios model does so too. To be clear, we are not calling for full fan ownership, but we are saying that, on issues of identity, the final word should ultimately rest with the fans. Let us remember that this amendment would apply only to three specific heritage areas: the club’s official name, the badge—or crest, depending on how we want to describe it—and the home shirt colours. This is not about banning innovation or marketing altogether. It is simply saying that, when it comes to fundamentals, supporters should have a say.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
We have seen in the past things such as the renaming of St James’ Park in Newcastle to the Sports Direct Arena, and other fans groups around the country have been furious when historic stadium names have been changed to sponsors’ names. Would the shadow Minister extend the sentiment that he is now expressing to those circumstances as well?
Mr French
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, and that is the point that we were discussing earlier with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East. We were seeking clarification from the Government on how that would affect the consultation of fans on the relocation of stadiums or a change in their ownership. I agree that it is crucial that fans have a say in the naming and history of their ground.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) once fell foul of this when he attempted to change the name of the Dell to the Friends Provident stadium. Perhaps we might consult him on his learnings from that experience after we have completed this Committee.
Mr French
I am not sure how to answer that. How Members decide to use their time is a decision for them, but the hon. Gentleman has made the point well. Without wishing to put off Government Members, the argument behind my amendment is deeply Conservative in some ways; it is about tradition, continuity and community. It is about respecting the past while also securing the future. It is about recognising that football is strongest when it listens to the people who love it most.
The clause is a step forward, and we think its inclusion in the Bill is important. Without our amendment, however, we are concerned that the clause will lack the legal bite required to safeguard the symbols that matter most to supporters. In truth, clubs that respect their fans would already seek that approval; the amendment would simply ensure that those who do not are held to the same standard. To be clear, no one should be able to change the name of Barnsley FC, the badge of Wigan Athletic or the home colours of Aston Villa without the backing of the very people who built the stands and carry the soul of the club every single week across multiple seasons.
I urge the Minister and colleagues across the Committee to back the amendment. Football’s future must be modern and well run, yes, but it must also be anchored in tradition, and the tradition belongs to the fans.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments to clause 49. We will discuss the clause in more detail in the clause stand part debate, so I will reserve some of my comments until then. To summarise, however, the clause places a duty on regulated clubs not to make changes to key items of club heritage without the support of the majority of the club’s fans and approval by the Football Association.
As set out in clause 7(4), the regulator is already required to monitor compliance with obligations. However, we do not think it appropriate for the regulator to be directly involved in every instance of a heritage change. As a light-touch regulator, we do not expect it to intervene where clubs are already meeting what is required of them. Instead, it will be able to have a wide view, and intervene where there are concerns.
Any change to heritage assets will necessarily come under significant scrutiny by fans and the public, as well as the FA through its existing fan engagement standards. Additionally, in any case of non-compliance, the regulator will have sufficient enforcement options at its disposal. The process is therefore appropriately safeguarded without the need for direct regulatory involvement each time.
Turning to amendments 111 and 92, club names are a vital part of the club’s heritage. The legislation therefore introduces legal protections for that heritage asset. The FA has a long track record of being able to take a considered approach to name changes, listening to fans and heritage concerns, and taking appropriate action. That was demonstrated in the case of Hull City: the FA blocked multiple attempts to change the name to “Hull Tigers”. The FA, with oversight of all levels of football, is also in a good position to ensure that name changes do not have unintended implications for clubs that are outside the regulator’s scope.
The Government therefore believe that the FA is in the best position to take into account fan opinions and all the other relevant considerations, with the regulator acting as an enforcement backstop. That is in addition to any mandatory licensing requirement for clubs to consult their fans on any matters relating to the club’s name, among other heritage assets.
The shadow Minister asked which fans will be consulted. For the most part, clubs will be in the best position to understand the demographics of their fans. The regulator will be able to provide guidance for clubs for on how best to consult fans. Clubs in the lower leagues will tend to have a more local fanbase, whereas larger clubs will have fanbases from across the world, as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East pointed out. That is why we want to implement proportional and flexible proposals.
Mr Betts
We all feel concerned about this issue. It is not about the clubs that already consult well; it is about those that do not consult, but will be compelled to consult by the legislation, and will not really want to—they will find ways around it. The regulator can give guidance, but if a club does not follow that guidance, what will the regulator’s likely course of action be?
Stephanie Peacock
We will come on to enforcement, but a range of enforcement options will be available to the regulator, if it feels that a club is not doing what it asked the club to do.
Mr French
To add to the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, if a club—the Minister gave the example of Hull—decided that it wanted to go ahead and change its name to “Hull Tigers”, but the regulator felt that the fans had not been consulted thoroughly enough, could the regulator deduct points from a club?
Stephanie Peacock
No, there are no sporting sanctions in the Bill. Those are not in scope. To take the point about the FA further, it has a long track record of being able to take a considered approach to name changes, to listening to fans and heritage concerns, and to taking appropriate action.
Lincoln Jopp
I welcome the fact that the Minister is saying, “Let’s trust existing organisations to do it”, rather than bringing it within the purview of a higher regulator. On the basis that the FA has exercised such responsibilities when it comes to names, why cannot it be trusted to have the same consideration for emblems and colours?
Stephanie Peacock
As I said, the FA, with oversight of the levels of football, is in a good position to ensure that name changes do not have unintended implications for clubs that are outside the regulator’s scope. It has done that point on names well. That is why we want to leave it to do the good job it is doing.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for her response. Although the Bill tackles financial sustainability, it has a real ability to rebuild trust between fans and football clubs. I feel that all three amendments are still worthy of being pressed to a vote, and I commend amendment 140 to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 49 requires a club to establish that a majority of domestic supporters approve any material change to its emblem, crest or predominant home shirt colours. A club’s name, home shirt colours and emblem are intrinsic parts of its heritage, intertwined with decades of club and supporter history. The decision to materially change any of them therefore requires considered thought and consultation. The clause means that changes can still be made, but only if, and once, fans have voiced their support. In practice, we expect that could take place through a formal survey of fan opinion, as we saw last season with Bristol Rovers, where supporters opposed the final proposal that was put to them, resulting in the club halting the redesign of their emblem.
The clause also requires clubs to get FA approval prior to changing the name that the club’s team plays under. The view of supporters is a significant factor in the FA’s decision making. However, the FA may also need to balance wider considerations regarding to a name change. That might include whether there would be any adverse effects on other clubs throughout the pyramid. The existing FA rule has been used to prevent name changes, which have been proposed in the past against the wishes of fans, as I mentioned with the example with Hull City. Codifying this as a legal duty will mean there are additional powers to ensure clubs do not make changes without proper approval and allow the regulator to respond to instances of non-compliance. The clause serves one of the key objectives of the regulator: protecting the heritage of English football. I commend it to the Committee.
Mr Betts
I am still a bit uneasy about those clubs that are not going to enter into the spirit of the really important part of the Bill: proper fan consultation. I come back to Sheffield Wednesday and its owner, who thinks sitting down for 10 hours of deliberation with hand-picked fan groups and not answering any questions amounts to a consultation—it does not.
I was interested in what the Minister said about how the regulator will have the right to issue guidance about how consultation should happen, and then there can be enforcement if the guidance is not followed, which means the guidance effectively becomes a requirement. I hope that we can elaborate on that later in the Committee’s discussions, as she indicated we would, because, without those backstop powers, there will be some club owners who regard the club as their personal possession and believe that no one has a right to interfere in how they run it.
Lincoln Jopp
I am intrigued to know whether, with all his experience, his chairmanship of the football all-party parliamentary group and his background with the Bill, the hon. Gentleman thinks he has yet received an adequate explanation from the Minister on why emblems and colours are treated differently from the names of clubs.
Stephanie Peacock
Names interact with other clubs in the pyramid, which is not the case with shirts and colours, and we think there are strong provisions in the Bill for fan consultation.
Mr Betts
I hear what the Minister said, but I want to think about that. I know what her good intentions are, but I also know there may be some people out there with bad intentions; it is about making sure that they come in line with the Minister’s good intentions. I am holding back to see what further discussions we have, but this is really important. It is a wider issue: there are so many clubs with so many disparate fan groups, and owners will pick and choose if there is not certainty. That is why I raised the issue, which I think we ought to come back to, of a clear role for the Football Supporters’ Association, the body that oversees fan groups in this country. It has a neutral view of which groups are the most important and relevant in different clubs, and it can help the regulator enormously in what, in some cases, will be a challenging process of trying to identify the fan groups who really speak for fans in those clubs.
Mr French
I will not put the hon. Member for Sheffield South East at risk with his own side by talking too fondly about the comments he just made—I will not make it sound like we are trying to do a double act—but we have heard a lot of concern in our debates on the clause, and the amendments tabled to it, about how it will work. The hon. Member mentioned that some club owners—one would hope only a minority of them—would seek to expose loopholes in the Bill. That is why we tabled amendment 111, which would introduce a safeguard by requiring a clear vote and the approval of the majority of fans.
There are a number of risks for the Government with this Bill, but one of the biggest is this: if it does not protect the things it is designed to protect—in this case, the heritage of a football club and a say for fans—what is its purpose at all? If one of the examples we have discussed plays out in future, that question will be asked of the Government. In our future debates on the Bill, perhaps they can provide more clarity about their thinking, and perhaps they will incorporate some of the arguments we have made today.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. We believe that we have strengthened measures in the Bill to put fans and communities back at the heart of the game and to protect football heritage. All regulated clubs will now be required to have an effective framework in place to meet and consult regularly a representative group of fans on the specified relevant matters, including any proposal to relocate the home ground and some of the issues we have just discussed. We expect that the regulator will be best placed to understand the circumstances of individual clubs across the country. It will produce guidance to support clubs in meeting its requirements, and it will take into account things like precedent and ensuring proportionality.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Duty to notify of changes in circumstances relevant to the IFR’s functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause places a duty on all regulated clubs to notify the regulator of any material change in circumstances that is relevant to the regulator’s functions, as soon as reasonably practicable. The regulator will need a complete picture of each club in order to effectively regulate. Full transparency and timely updates will allow the regulator to stay up to date on any relevant changes in real time.
The duty to notify in the clause is an ongoing duty on regulated clubs. By contrast, the annual declaration mandatory licence condition applies to licensed clubs only. The annual declaration is about creating an annual touchpoint for clubs as part of the licensing regime, rather than requiring an annual licence renewal. It will allow clubs to declare a summary of any matters that they notified, or should have notified, over the past year.
Mr French
I will not rehash the Minister’s description of the clause, but it raises a number of questions about the interpretation of the clause and the requirements on clubs. What guidance will be provided to clubs to determine what constitutes a “relevant” change in circumstances, because that is very open to interpretation? What might such a change look like? We are not trying to micromanage, but we think clubs might find it helpful to understand, even if it is via a list of frequently asked questions from the regulator, what constitutes a change of circumstances so that they do not accidently fall foul of well-intentioned drafting.
Could the duty to notify a change in circumstances be accidentally disproportionate to lower league clubs? We have discussed at length that those clubs generally do not have the same administrative resources as the big clubs. Will the regulator look to have a more flexible approach to clubs lower down the pyramid that may not have the ability to notify as quickly as those at the top?
Stephanie Peacock
We expect the regulator to look at this on a case-by-case basis. As we have said throughout, we very much intend for the regulator to be proportionate depending on where a club sits in the pyramid.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Duty to keep fans informed of insolvency proceedings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause places a duty on all regulated clubs in relevant insolvency proceedings to keep fans informed of the progress of the proceedings. Any fan that has experienced their club going into administration can attest that it is a worrying and often confusing time. Although the regime will look to best protect clubs, it cannot be zero-failure. However, the clause is intended to make the process more transparent for fans when the worst happens. The duty will apply only as far as is reasonable and will not fall on the administrators or any body not regulated by the football regulator. The clause was added to the Bill in order to mitigate unnecessary worry and confusion for fans.
Mr French
I have a few questions. How will the regulator assess whether a club has sufficiently fulfilled its duty to keep fans informed? Could the requirement to disclose information during insolvency proceedings create additional reputational or financial risks for clubs? How will the clause be applied consistently while respecting confidential obligations to creditors? We have spoken a lot about insider information. If the Minister does not have the answers today, it would be helpful to get them in writing in order to understand how some of these complex legal matters might work.
Stephanie Peacock
I am happy to write to the shadow Minister. I appreciate that we added this clause; it was not in the previous iteration of the Bill. That is why I was keen to talk about reasonability. We appreciate that insolvency is a complex, fast-paced, changing and challenging situation, but we also appreciate—Members have talked about different clubs that have gone into administration—the worry for fans, so we want to keep them as informed as reasonably possible. The shadow Minister asked me for something further in writing and I am very happy to provide that.
Lincoln Jopp
Again, I am concerned about the clash of duties. The Minister has already told us that her team and the insolvency team have met and considered this issue. In a period of liquidation, not putting additional debt into a company, or indeed spending cash, is one of the directors’ responsibilities, but this will undoubtedly cost the club. Has the Minister sought and received reassurances that this approach is consistent with the Insolvency Act?
Stephanie Peacock
Perhaps I will add the answer to that question to my letter to the shadow Minister, and I will copy it to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The clause is clear that the duty will apply only as far as possible, because we do not want to add a burden at an already difficult time. As this is quite a complex but important point, I am happy to write to both hon. Gentlemen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Duty to publish a personnel statement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause requires licensed clubs to prepare a personnel statement and submit it to the regulator for approval. Alongside the statement, clubs must provide an explanation as to why they consider it to be accurate. The owners and officers who control and run football clubs are vital to their sustainability. Therefore, the regulator needs to know who is running the show behind the scenes in order to implement its regime effectively.
A personnel statement must outline each of the club’s owners and its ultimate owner, as we have discussed; its officers, with a job description for each; and its senior managers and their roles. Once the statement has been submitted, the regulator will review it and decide either to approve it or to modify it. Any modification to the statement must be made in consultation with the relevant club to ensure that the statement is accurate. Once the statement is approved by the regulator, the club must publish it online, increasing transparency and accountability in football. Subsequent statements must be submitted to the regulator if an old statement becomes out of date—for example, after the departure or hiring of an officer.
Let me also highlight the role of the Secretary of State’s guidance in providing clarity to owners about who meets the definition of someone who exercises significant influence or control. We committed in the other House to producing the Secretary of State’s guidance before clubs are required to identify owners who meet that definition to the regulator. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Duty to pay a levy
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 53, page 42, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) But the IFR may not require a club with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees to pay the IFR a levy in respect of a chargeable period during which the club is a licensed club.”
This amendment would exempt clubs with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees from having to pay the levy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—Opportunity for levy exemption for clubs below the Football League—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a process whereby a licensed club may apply for a full or partial exemption from the levy established under section 53 if—
(a) the club’s first men’s team competes in the National League or any lower tier of the English football pyramid, and
(b) the club demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the IFR, that paying the levy would pose a significant risk to its financial sustainability.
(2) The IFR must report annually on the number of exemptions granted and the rationale for each decision.”
This new clause allows clubs in National League North and National League South to apply for a levy exemption under specific circumstances.
New clause 24—Levy exemption procedure for clubs in administration—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations establishing a procedure under which a regulated club that has entered administration may apply for an exemption from the levy provided for by section 53.
(2) The regulations under subsection (1) must include provision for the IFR to determine whether an exemption from the levy should be granted.
(3) Provision under subsection (2) must require the IFR—
(a) to take account of the circumstances under which the club entered administration, and
(b) only to grant an exemption from the levy if the IFR is satisfied that the owners of the club have not taken a decision to enter administration in order to secure an exemption from the levy.
(4) In this section, a club has ‘entered administration’ if an administrator of the club has been appointed under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a procedure for clubs in administration to apply for an exemption from the levy. The IFR would only be able to grant an exemption if satisfied that the club had not deliberately entered administration as a means of securing the exemption.
Mr French
It is my pleasure to speak to amendment 133. Clause 53 introduces a duty on regulated clubs to pay a statutory levy to the Government’s new regulator—a mechanism intended to fund its operations and ensure its independence from Government and industry influence. The principle is not unreasonable. If clubs are to be regulated, one could argue that it is fair that they should contribute to the costs of said regulation.
However, we have two initial concerns. First, as the initial costs incurred are to be borne by the taxpayer, that does not ensure independence from Government—quite the opposite; it creates a reliance on the Government for funding and therefore for direction and sponsorship of activities. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the regulator will cost taxpayers around £106 million until the levy provided for by the clause is up and running.
To put that in context, that money could fund the Lionesses futures fund, which the Government have scrapped, more than three times over. In what should be a fantastic and inspirational year for women’s sport, the Government are choosing to spend money on regulating men’s football instead of investing in the growth of the women’s game. I make that comparison with quite a lot of regret because I believe that it is the wrong decision by the Government, but I will stick to the Bill.
Secondly, many clubs have not asked to be regulated, and they might ask why they should pay for a regulator that seeks to stifle their operations or interfere with their performance and make them uncompetitive in the competitive world of sport. I have asked the question the Minister in previous sittings what would happen if a club chose not to apply for a licence. I am a bit unclear how that would look. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the yearly cost to all regulated clubs in the English football pyramid will be up to around £142 million, with up to £1.2 million in one-off familiarisation costs, ongoing compliance costs of up to £35.8 million every year following the first year, and operational costs, which will be incurred every year. As I mentioned earlier, the operational costs will be funded initially by the taxpayer, before an industry levy is introduced.
That is an extraordinary amount of money to be leaving the game, especially as the Minister has recognised that money leaving the game in agents’ fees, for example, is detrimental to the sustainability of English football. The costs that the Government are imposing on clubs through the regulator clearly threaten the sustainability of some clubs, as a stand-alone issue. Moreover, as the Minister’s own impact assessment states, the costs are not expected to fall equally on each club; proportionately, they will be greater, and felt more greatly, further down the pyramid.
The impact assessment also states that factors such as
“existing levels of compliance impact the level of activity required”
by the regulator. We all know that that means more work and higher costs for lower-level clubs over the wealthiest. They will have more catching up to do than the big clubs in most instances, leaving them to bear the brunt of the Government’s regulator. It is vital that, as Opposition Members have said throughout this Committee, the regulator is not captured either financially or politically by any one interest group. However, that will now prove difficult with the appointment that the Government have made.
Although we support the broad purpose of clause 53, we must interrogate its fairness, proportionality and impact on smaller clubs. That is why I tabled amendment 133, which would exempt clubs with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees from the statutory levy. Regulators do not run on good will alone, and this one certainly will be no different. They need staff systems and legal support, but costs must be borne fairly and in a way that does not threaten the institutions that the Bill seeks to protect.
Clause 53 allows the regulator to determine how much is paid, by whom and how often, subject to regulations approved by the Secretary of State. It is a wide power and an open-ended one. As it is drafted, the Bill does not place any cap on the amount or impose any statutory criteria on proportionality. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to introduce guidance or a statutory cap on the total amount that might be levied by the regulator, either per club or across the sector?
Given that the proposed appointee to the role of chair donated to the Secretary of State, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will not make any decision on how much money can be levied in the future? As it stands, the clause effectively allows the Secretary of State to write a blank cheque to a regulator run by a person who donated directly to her leadership campaign. That alone creates the perception of a conflict of interest, for which the current Secretary of State, as we all know, is under independent investigation.
Although some Premier League clubs might be able to absorb the costs, the same cannot be said for smaller, lower-league or community-based clubs such as Barnsley, Bromley or Wigan. My amendment would create a simple, fair exemption. Any club with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees would not be required to pay the levy. That is not just an administrative fix; it is a recognition of football’s diversity and, in true footballing spirit, would champion the underdogs by allowing them to focus on their squads or stadium improvements that would benefit fans. A club with eight employees is not in the same universe, financially or structurally, as a Premier League club with a commercial team, global brand and multimillion-pound payroll.
Mr French
That is a fair challenge. To be clear, we are not talking about five-a-side teams. To give a straight answer, we are talking about backroom staff affected by the administration. We can see that in the wage bill at opposite ends of the pyramid in 2022-23, with the Premier League’s wage bill running at more than £4 billion and League Two’s wage bill sitting at just £96 million, or 2.4% of the Premier League’s total.
Mr French
To be completely up front, I do not have that answer in front of me, but I will find out—the team has drafted this amendment.
Without this amendment, clubs in both the Premier League and League Two could find themselves subject to the same regulatory levy. This risks creating a two-tier burden, where the most vulnerable clubs are saddled with costs that they cannot pay for a regulator that many of them do not want.
Why have the Government chosen not to introduce an automatic exemption for the very smallest clubs, and has an exemption based on staffing levels or turnover been considered? We already accept differential treatment in other areas of public policy—for example, small businesses are treated differently from large corporations, and community amateur sports clubs benefit from separate tax and regulatory frameworks. We believe that the same logic could apply here.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am sure the shadow Minister is aware that many top-flight footballers are effectively self-employed through independent companies that they set up. Does he not recognise that this amendment would create a loophole that enables football clubs to split into multiple organisations to fall short of having 10 full-time employees?
Mr French
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I know that certain players have sought to do that through advertising and other financial arrangements. We are talking about clubs at the lowest level, and we do not believe that is a particular risk of this amendment.
One of the key failings of the football system in recent years has been the concentration of financial risk at the lower levels of the pyramid. Clubs overextend themselves chasing promotion, owners gamble recklessly to stay afloat, and supporters ultimately bear the costs when that does not work and when clubs collapse. The last thing we believe we should be doing is introducing a new statutory cost that could tip the balance for smaller clubs already running on the thinnest margins. This amendment is not about letting anyone off the hook; it is about recognising scale, and recognising the difference of scale in the football pyramid.
Will the Minister please commit to publishing a full impact assessment of the levy’s distribution before regulations are laid? Without that, how can Parliament be sure that the burden will not fall disproportionately on those least able to bear it? One of the justifications for the levy is to secure the regulator’s operational independence, which is a principle that we support, but independence should never mean insulation from scrutiny. If clubs are paying the regulator’s bill, they should at least know where the money is going and have confidence that it is not being wasted.
The Minister has maintained that football regulation cannot be one size fits all, and we understand that is her reason for leaving the wording of the Bill quite open-ended in places. Clause 53 is sound in many ways, but in practice it risks imposing an undue burden on the very clubs that the Bill is supposed to help—those rooted in their communities, run on small budgets and kept alive, more often than not, by volunteers, not venture capitalists. In that spirit, I will be pressing this amendment to a vote.
Max Wilkinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Earlier in our deliberations—I cannot remember how many sittings ago—the Liberal Democrats made the case for extending the Bill’s scope to the sixth tier, the National Leagues. Effectively, we feel that helping those clubs up the pyramid would be useful, and on a cross-party basis, we have discussed support for the National League’s 3UP campaign, which we can take forward after Committee as a group of Members who are interested in football.
This amendment is quite simple, as it is about extending the Bill’s scope to the sixth tier. It would give clubs in National League North and National League South the opportunity to apply for an exemption from the levy, were it to be extended to that level. Clubs at that level may well not have the capacity to take on the administration associated with regulation. Such increased financial protections for lower-league clubs—those in the National League and National Leagues North and South—would align with the principles of the Bill.
Mr Dillon
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. New clause 24, tabled in my name, seeks to introduce a fair and transparent exemption procedure for football clubs in administration. When a football club enters administration, it is not merely a financial event; it is often a crisis that rocks the entire community, as we saw in Bury. Supporters, many of whom have been lifelong followers, are left facing uncertainty and fear for the future of their club, which is often the heartbeat of their town or city.
New clause 24 seeks to strike a vital balance by maintaining the integrity of the levy while allowing compassionate and evidence-based interventions when a club is on its knees. It would ensure that exemptions are not handed out indiscriminately, and that the regulator must assess each case on its merits and satisfy itself that the club’s financial difficulties are not a calculated move to evade its levy responsibilities. Most importantly, the new clause would give clubs a chance.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for his amendment, and I thank the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Newbury for their new clauses. I acknowledge the intent behind them.
We will shortly discuss the levy in more detail when I speak to clauses 53 and 54, but in short, the Bill gives the regulator the power to collect a levy to recover its running costs from football clubs that hold an operating licence. I will outline why the Government intend to resist this amendment and these new clauses before directly answering some of the specific points that hon. Members have put to me.
The levy arrangement follows the precedent of other regulators, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom. As the regulator is designed to improve the financial sustainability of English football, it is vital that the associated costs do not burden clubs, especially those further down the pyramid.
Amendment 133 and new clause 5 seek to address similar issues relating to ensuring that small or lower-league clubs are not burdened by unaffordable costs as a result of this regulation. I assure the Committee that the Bill is already designed with National League clubs in mind. The regulator will be tasked with improving the financial sustainability of football, and placing an undue burden on small clubs would be completely contradictory to that aim.
Clause 53(10) introduces a statutory requirement for the regulator to have regard to each club’s individual financial circumstances, and the league in which it plays, when setting the levy. Given that requirement, we expect that the levy will be proportionate, with the Premier League—specifically the six clubs with the highest revenues—covering the majority of the cost. That solidarity will reduce the burden on clubs lower down the pyramid. No club should be charged more than it can afford.
Through its levy rules, the regulator will also have the power to exempt clubs from paying the levy. That power, provided by clause 53(8), ensures that there is a mechanism to avoid burdening clubs. If certain conditions set by the regulator through rules are met, the regulator has the discretion to exempt clubs from paying the levy—that answers the shadow Minister’s question. The power will work in conjunction with the requirement on the regulator to consider each individual club’s financial resources, and the competition in which it plays, when setting the levy, as well as the requirement to consult all regulated clubs on its levy rules.
On new clause 24, I agree wholeheartedly that the regulator should not place an undue burden on a club that has already entered administration. I reassure the hon. Member for Newbury that the regulator will set out its levy methodology, including the discretion to set the levy according to a club’s individual circumstances, and to exempt a club completely if specified conditions are met.
The regulator has a core objective of improving the financial sustainability of English football, and I am confident that it will be cognisant of the impact that the levy could have on any club, and especially a club in administration or other financial distress. The Bill’s provisions, such as the regulator’s discretion to exempt certain clubs from the levy, if necessary, account for that core objective.
In response to the shadow Minister, I note that there is no cap, but the regulator can set costs related only to its functions. As I have just outlined, under the powers granted to the regulator by the Bill, it could exempt small clubs from the levy, if that is deemed necessary. However, we do not think that mandating a complete exemption in legislation is appropriate. Exempting a whole league before an assessment has been made of whether clubs in that league can afford the levy would be disproportionate.
Lincoln Jopp
I want to clarify whether the Minister is entirely comfortable that the Government are in no way able to control the amount of money spent by the regulator. If, in fulfilling its duties, the regulator decided it was important to fly business class to meet UEFA and FIFA once a month—if I were the regulator, I could probably make the case that I was fulfilling my duties by doing that—it would create a huge cost and involve hiring additional staff. Are the Government really prepared to give the regulator a blank cheque?
Stephanie Peacock
There is no cap. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the regulatory principles we addressed earlier in the Bill. Obviously, the regulator needs to be proportionate and reasonable. The regulator will guide its operations according to those principles.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the words out of my mouth, because I was going to conclude by drawing the Committee’s attention to a letter placed in the Libraries of both Houses when the Bill was in the other place. The letter, dated 6 March, was sent by Baroness Twycross, who took the Bill through the Lords. I will not detain the Committee by reading out the letter—Members can look at it—but it breaks down the proportions. Obviously, costs are based on the impact assessment and are indicative, so they are not meant to be prescriptive; it is meant to be an indicator. The letter may be helpful if the Committee would like more detail.
Mr French
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s arguments, and she has made some helpful clarifications. However, due to the lack of a cap, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, it is difficult to rely on the letter for what club certainty might look like in the future. We have discussed at length how well-intentioned plans can easily spiral, which is why we believe amendment 133 is important in helping to safeguard the clubs with the smallest means and those lowest down the pyramid.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Decisions on the new clauses will be made at the end of the Committee’s considerations.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 53, page 42, line 8, leave out “leviable functions” and insert “functions under this Act”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Stephanie Peacock
These amendments will make all regulatory functions under the Bill fundable through the levy. As drafted, the Bill sets out the specific functions that will be funded through the levy, making a distinction between the funding of leviable and non-leviable functions—I will discuss those concepts in greater detail shortly. Currently, the former would be funded via the levy and the latter via rules set by the regulator.
These amendments would make the funding mechanism simpler and more reliable by clarifying and ensuring that the regulator will be able to recover litigation costs related to non-leviable functions. If the regulator were unable to recover those costs, there is a risk that it would either be unable to use some of its powers or have to seek Government financial assistance to fund them. That is why we propose these changes.
Mr French
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s explanation of these amendments, which have been introduced at a fairly late stage. I hope she can provide some clarity on a number of questions.
First, was it always the Government’s intention to have these separate streams of funding, as she has described, or is this a way of expanding the IFR’s powers to charge the levy? I am unclear about why the change has happened now, because we have obviously been through a lot of consultation and the Bill has been in the other place for some time. It is not necessarily clear why these changes have come about at this stage, so I would appreciate an answer.
Lastly, when the Minister described the charges as non-leviable, the natural question was, “Who picks up the bill?” Are we talking about taxpayers, and if we are, what are those costs? Exposure to risk would obviously be a major concern for taxpayers and, I suspect, a number of Government Departments following the spending review. I appreciate her comments about how the Government believe that the functions may not be used or required, but there needs to be an answer about the risk of those non-leviable payments and what that might look like in the future.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister. First, it is certainly not about expanding, and we have been very clear that we do not want scope creep. He asks “Why now?” We have always maintained that we want the best legislation and the best outcome. We very much listened to the debate in the other place. We reflected on that, and we believe that this is just a simpler, less complex way of going about it.
On his last question, I can very much assure him that it is quite the opposite. By making these changes, the costs will not have an impact on taxpayers. We are clear about that.
Mr French
I am still unclear on that point, but I am happy to have the answer in writing. Who will pick up the bill when the levy cannot be charged to clubs, and what will that bill look like? I am not at all clear about how that will play out in practice. I am not sure whether I am misunderstanding the Minister, and I am happy to have it in writing, but I am not clear what it means.
Stephanie Peacock
I say gently that I think the shadow Minister is misunderstanding, and I am happy to write to him. The amendment means that all functions can now be covered by the levy, whereas previously there were two funding mechanisms in the Bill. It is a technical change.
Lincoln Jopp
I agree with the Minister—my understanding of what she just said is the same—but that leaves a tiny bit of clarity still to be given. Will all the normal running costs of the regulator be met by the levy, and none by the taxpayer?
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, that is the intention.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendments made: 19, in clause 53, page 42, line 13, leave out “leviable functions” and insert “functions under this Act”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Amendment 20, in clause 53, page 42, line 14, leave out “leviable functions” and insert “functions under this Act”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Amendment 21, in clause 53, page 42, line 19, leave out “leviable”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Amendment 22, in clause 53, page 42, line 26, leave out subsection (4).—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment removes the definition of “leviable functions” so that the IFR may charge a levy for all of its functions under the Act.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 53, page 42, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) Once the IFR has established a levy under subsection (1) and made the required payments under section 96, the IFR must only fund its functions under this Act through its own revenue streams.
(6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A) the IFR’s ‘own revenue streams’ are any amounts payable to the IFR from regulated clubs under subsection (1).”
This amendment requires the IFR to be self-funding through the industry levy, but after it has paid its initial costs and the Secretary of State’s establishment costs to the Treasury.
The amendment would require the Government’s new regulator to be self-funding through the industry levy, but after it has paid its initial costs and the Secretary of State’s establishment costs to the Treasury, so that it is entirely self-sustaining. That is not unreasonable; taxpayers are already being squeezed by this Government, so it would be ludicrous to suggest that they should foot the bill for the Labour Government’s regulator. That is why I tabled the amendment, which seeks to place a clear financial obligation on the regulator to ensure that, after covering its start-up and establishment costs, it becomes entirely self-funding through the industry levy.
The principle behind the amendment is simple: if we are to create an independent regulator for football, its independence must extend beyond structure to include financial independence from the taxpayer. The clause gives the Secretary of State discretion to determine the mechanics of the levy, but it leaves unanswered an essential question: who ultimately pays—we have had a bit of discussion about that—and for how long? The amendment provides a clear and reasonable answer: the taxpayer may support the regulator’s launch, as might be expected, but once that is done, the regulator should stand on its own two feet.
Let us not forget the purpose of the Bill: the regulator is intended to be arm’s length, neutral and shielded from political interference. However, the Government have gone to great lengths to compromise that independence through their appointment, as we have discussed, and the principle would be fully compromised if the regulator remained financially reliant on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, or the Treasury for that matter. Independence is not just about who makes the appointments, but about who signs the cheques.
If the regulator is to carry out its duties credibly—overseeing financial discipline, enforcing ownership standards and planning across the football pyramid for the long term—it must operate free from any perception of ministerial influence. That means being self-funding. The idea that the British taxpayer should continue to fund the ongoing operations of this new body is simply not justifiable, particularly at a time when families are feeling the squeeze and public services are under pressure. If clubs need a regulator—and the Government have decided that they do—then clubs, not pensioners in Bexley or shop workers in Barnsley, should pay for that regulator.
The amendment would also introduce discipline into the regulatory model. It would ensure that the Government’s regulator lives within its means, plans sustainably and operates efficiently, just as it will expect clubs to. We must avoid the slow drift we have seen with other public bodies, where what begins as temporary state support gradually hardens into permanent public subsidy with no sunset clause or accountability.
By requiring the regulator to repay its start-up costs and then operate independently, we would make a clear distinction between initial public investment and long-term industry responsibility. It is not unreasonable to ask that football, having accepted the need for regulatory oversight, for which many have lobbied, now contributes to that oversight on a permanent and self-sustaining basis.
That gives rise to a number of questions for the Minister. Is there a timeline for when the regulator is expected to be self-funding, or will it continue to draw on the public purse for a number of years? What provision, if any, has been made to recover the taxpayers’ outlay once the regulator begins to collect levy income? I would be grateful, as would taxpayers across the country, for reassurances from the Minister that those issues are being addressed, and that the taxpayer will not be left to subsidise the industry without a clear exit plan.
My amendment would protect the principle of independence. It would safeguard the public purse and ensure that those who arguably benefit from oversight are the ones who pay for it. Football is told that it will get a strong, credible and financially sound regulator, but taxpayers deserve clarity, discipline and fairness in how that regulator is funded. I therefore urge the Committee to support the amendment and make the regulator accountable to the industry it oversees, not dependent on the Government that created it. Let us build something that is self-sustaining, responsible, and fit for the future.
Stephanie Peacock
During our debate on the technical changes proposed by the Government, we discussed the removal of the non-leviable functions. That means that everything will be levy-funded, so there will be no cost to the taxpayer. We absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the regulator being self-sustaining and self-funding. The Government also agree that the regulator should not be able to borrow money at its own discretion, which is why it is already prevented from doing so in paragraph 37(2) of schedule 2, which sets out that the regulator cannot borrow money unless explicitly permitted to as part of the financial assistance from the Secretary of State. We expect that that would occur only if absolutely necessary and in extreme circumstances, and would be provided only subject to conditions set by the Secretary of State.
There is no need for the restriction to be duplicated. We absolutely agree that the regulator should be fully funded through the levy, and that is exactly what the levy is designed to do. I will come on to that in more detail when we discuss the levy under clause 53 stand part. The Bill ensures that the regulator’s source of funding for all regulatory functions is the levy. Any financial penalties it imposes through enforcement action can also be used to offset any litigation costs and reduce the burden on compliant clubs.
Mr French
I appreciate that the Minister said that she will come on to that subject in a later debate, but can she be clear about start-up costs and their recovery for taxpayers? How is it envisaged that those costs will be repaid? I appreciate the point she makes about levy contributions, but how will the start-up costs that have been incurred now, along with the cost of the shadow football regulator, be recovered, if at all?
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to address that later, if possible. I have heard the question, and will make sure the hon. Gentleman gets an answer. For the reasons I have set out, I hope he will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Betts
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 53, page 43, line 35, after “club” insert
“and in particular that the starting point for calculation of the levy payment applicable to a particular club should be a percentage of annual revenue”.
This amendment would require the IFR to have regard to a football club’s percentage of annual revenue when calculating a levy payment.
I encourage the Minister to say whether she thinks that the levy payment should relate to the income of clubs. Some clubs are clearly mega-rich—multi-million pound businesses, every year—but other clubs’ income is down in the few thousands of pounds. My amendment is probing, really, but will the Minister confirm whether clubs’ income is the basic building block on which the levy will be formulated?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East for tabling his amendment. The Government completely understand the importance of any charges on clubs being transparent and proportionate and offering value for money. That must be achieved while maintaining the regulator’s operational independence and flexibility to respond to industry developments in the future. I will come on to discuss the levy in detail, but I will set out the key points now for clarity, in relation both to this amendment and to how the Bill ensures the levy is affordable for clubs.
The regulator must set out in levy rules how the annual levy payments will be calculated. The Bill explicitly requires the regulator to have regard to the club’s financial resources and position in the pyramid. That would include revenue. It should ensure a proportionate approach where no club, big or small, is asked to pay more than what is fair and affordable. Premier League clubs are expected to shoulder the majority of costs, reducing the financial burden on smaller clubs.
It would not be appropriate to prescribe an exact methodology for charging the levy in legislation, as doing so would remove the regulator’s ability to explore other possibly more effective and proportionate methods of charging. That would be counter to the agile and independent regulator we want to create. For example, a club might have a relatively low organic revenue, but its owners might have very deep pockets. The regulator might want to take that into account to ensure that charges are fair, proportionate and relative to circumstances.
I also want to highlight that there is a statutory requirement for the regulator to consult industry on the levy. Every regulated club will be consulted. That transparency means that no club will be surprised by the changes asked of them. That will be sufficient to ensure the levy is fair and proportionate. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
Before I speak on clause 53, I draw the Committee’s attention to a procedural matter. In preparing for the debate, officials identified some inconsistencies in the impact assessment published on the Bill’s parliamentary web page and gov.uk. It appears that as figures were updated during the development of the impact assessment, they were not reflected in the summary of costs on one page at the beginning of the paper, which was related to the compliance cost and operational cost. The figures are correct in the main body of the impact assessment, and the total cost that those figures added up to is still correct. The inconsistencies also featured in the version submitted by the previous Government. For full accuracy and transparency, we have now corrected it, and the impact assessment on gov.uk was updated last night. We have notified the Public Bill Office to ensure the parliamentary website is updated as soon as possible, and there will be an updated version in the Library shortly.
Having provided that clarification, I will now discuss clause 53, which enables the regulator to charge a levy to licensed clubs that covers the regulator’s running cost. That follows the precedent of other regulators such as the Financial Conduct Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom. The levy methodology is an operational assessment that the regulator is best placed to make independently. By making football clubs more sustainable in the long term, the regulator will be providing a service to the industry. It is only fair that as a wealthy industry, football, as opposed to the taxpayer, should cover the cost of regulation, as has been well discussed by the Committee this afternoon.
The cost of regulation would represent just a tiny fraction of football’s more than £6 billion annual revenue. The industry will also benefit from regulation, which will deliver a more stable pyramid of sustainable and resilient clubs, and so help protect the commercial value of English football. The legislation puts robust checks and balances on the regulator. It will be limited to raising funds to meet a set of tightly defined costs that are necessary for regulatory activity only. It is clear in the clause what the levy covers and how the money will be used, ensuring the regulator’s transparency. As I alluded to in the discussion on Government amendments 18 to 26, all costs can now be funded through the levy.
However, the regulator will not have a blank cheque. It will be subject to numerous safeguards including annual auditing by the National Audit Office, and its annual accounts will be laid before Parliament. That and other safeguards, such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s responsibility as a sponsor, will provide the necessary transparency and scrutiny to deliver value for money.
In addition, as I set out when we discussed the previous group of amendments, the clause also requires the regulator to have regard to a club’s individual financial position when setting the levy charge. Specifically, that covers the financial resources of a club and the league in which it plays. That should ensure a proportionate approach where no club, big or small, is asked to pay more than what is fair and affordable. That will be aided by the requirement for the regulator to consult all licensed clubs, which I will speak to in more detail in the debate on the next group of amendments. In addition, once operational, the regulator will have a legal requirement to set out its levy charges annually and consult all regulated clubs on its methodology.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Section 53: consultation and publication
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 103, in clause 54, page 44, line 10, leave out
“As soon as is reasonably practicable”
and insert “Six months”.
The amendment requires the IFR to publish levy rules six months before the chargeable period.
Mr French
The clause sets out the consultation process that the Government’s new regulator must follow before introducing or amending the rules governing the industry levy that clubs will pay to fund the regulator’s operations, as we discussed on clause 53. The clause is designed to ensure that any such changes are not made in a vacuum and that the regulator consults the right people, provides a draft of the rules and gathers feedback before finalising anything. On the face of it, this is a welcome safeguard, but, as is so often the case with this Bill, the detail deserves much closer scrutiny.
Let us be clear: the industry levy is not a trivial matter. It is the mechanism by which clubs will fund the regulator, and the amount of levy and the method by which it is calculated or collected could have serious financial consequences, especially for clubs operating on tight margins, as we have discussed. We are talking about a compulsory statutory payment, not a voluntary contribution or a negotiated fee. Any change to the rules governing the levy must therefore be subject to robust scrutiny, proper stakeholder input and full transparency.
The clause requires the regulator to consult a named list of stakeholders as well as any others it considers appropriate. It also requires a draft version of the proposed levy rules to be published as part of the consultation. So far, so good. But—this is a significant but—the clause also includes a major loophole.
The clause states that the Government’s regulator does not need to consult at all if it considers the proposed changes to the levy rules to be “minor”. Crucially, the regulator itself is to determine whether such a change is minor. Why is the regulator being permitted to define what counts as minor without any external check, threshold or approval? That creates a dangerous conflict of interest where the Minister’s regulator becomes the judge and jury in its own process. What is minor to the Government’s regulator may be highly significant to lower league clubs, such as a League Two or National League club trying to manage a tight budget.
Once again, the Bill has a significant risk of regulatory mission creep. We must consider the cumulative effect of so-called minor changes: one small rule adjustment may seem harmless, but several such changes made without consultation could over time significantly alter the levy framework, placing new burdens on clubs without ever facing proper scrutiny. That is how regulatory creep begins, and that is precisely what the clause should be guarding against, but, as drafted, it does not.
Would the Minister consider amending the clause to define “minor” changes more clearly, perhaps by setting out objective criteria or requiring approval from the Secretary of State, Parliament or an independent panel? Alternatively, would she consider a threshold mechanism where changes with a financial impact above a certain level must trigger consultation regardless of her own regulator’s view?
I suspect that the answer to those questions will be no, which is why I tabled amendment 102, which would remove the regulator’s power to skip consultation when it determines a change to be minor. The intent behind the exemption may be practical and be—to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy—but in reality it gives the Government’s regulator unilateral power to decide whether stakeholders should be consulted on changes that could have material financial consequences.
Crucially, the definition of “minor” is left entirely to the regulator’s own judgment, as I have said. There is no objective test, no threshold and no review. Will the Minister explain why the Government believe it is acceptable for a statutory regulator to decide, on its own authority, when it is allowed to bypass the requirement to consult clubs and stakeholders that will be legislated for by Parliament? In every other walk of regulated life, such exemptions would be expected to come with clear limits or external oversight, yet in this instance we are effectively giving the Government’s regulator the ability to mark its own homework.
Let us not forget that the levy is not an optional contribution but a statutory obligation. Clubs will have no choice but to pay whatever is set, which means that even small changes could have big consequences, particularly for those lower down the pyramid. What may seem minor to the regulator may not seem so minor to a National League club balancing its books.
Does the Minister recognise that cumulative so-called minor changes could, over time, significantly increase the regulatory burden on clubs without ever triggering a formal consultation? That is the risk of leaving this loophole in the Bill. It is not just about what the Government’s regulator might do today; it is also about what a future regulator—possibly a more activist regulator, although I hope not—might decide in years to come. We need to close the door now before that risk becomes reality.
If clubs are to have confidence in the new regulatory regime, they must feel that major financial decisions will not be made without their involvement. Even the perception that the Government’s regulator could tweak the levy regime unilaterally using the exemption for minor changes could erode trust, particularly among the smaller clubs that are already concerned. Consultation must not be seen as optional; it must be the default, not the exception.
That leads me to amendment 103, which aims to improve the clarity of the Government’s regulator’s approach to any levy that it seeks to impose. The specific issue that it seeks to correct is that, under the Bill as drafted, the regulator must publish details of the levy as soon as is reasonably practicable before the start of a chargeable period. My amendment would require the Government’s new regulator to publish the levy rules at least six months before the beginning of the chargeable period to which they apply. It is about financial certainty, about clubs being able to plan and about not changing the rules on the eve of a new season.
We know that many clubs, especially further down the pyramid, operate on tight annual budgets. They finalise player contracts, ticketing strategies and community programmes months in advance. A late change to the levy rate or calculation method could throw all that into confusion. The amendment would help to give English football clubs the clarity that they need to prepare. It would ensure that levy changes are not imposed at short notice and it would enforce a principle that reasonable regulators should provide advance notice of costs.
What safeguards, if any, will the Government establish to ensure that levy changes are communicated to the affected clubs in good time? If the answer is that it will be left to guidance or good practice, that will simply be not good enough. Good intentions are no substitute for legislative certainty. Both amendments are modest, reasonable and—we believe—entirely consistent with the Government’s stated ambition to build a trusted and transparent regulator that works with clubs, not over them. We must get the process right.
Clubs must know when a charge is coming and how much it will cost them and their fans, and they must be given a chance to respond. That is what the amendments would provide—nothing more and nothing less. Removing the minor change loophole would ensure that no future regulator could bypass scrutiny at its own convenience, and the requirement to provide six months’ notice would guarantee that clubs are not left scrambling to deal with cost changes with no time to prepare. This is about good governance, fair process and fiscal discipline.
Clause 54 provides the procedural backbone for how the Government’s regulator will engage with the industry when amending leverage rules.
Lincoln Jopp
Let me provide some context. I will not name the team, but there is a team in the National League whose cash at hand in 2020 was £25,000, and by 2022 that had reduced to £9,802. We are talking about clubs with an incredibly tight financial structure. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister that changes may be minor to the regulator, but they will not be minor to such teams.
Mr French
I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable contribution, which gets to the heart of the amendments and what we are seeking to do. As I have said, they are designed not to undermine the regulator but to give transparency and fairness to clubs, so they can prepare their finances accordingly.
As I was saying, clause 54 leaves too much discretion in the hands of the regulator, particularly through the vague and undefined minor change exemption. We cannot create a system in which financial rules that affect the entire English game can be altered without oversight simply because the Government’s regulator says that the change is small or minor. If we want confidence, we need consistency. If we want accountability, we need clarity. Let us ensure that the Government’s regulator consults not just when it wants to, but when it needs to.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling his amendments. Amendment 102 would require the regulator to consult every regulated club, the Secretary of State, the Treasury and others that the regulator considers appropriate, for minor changes to the levy rules. Clause 54 imposes a statutory duty on the regulator to consult the Secretary of State, His Majesty’s Treasury and regulated clubs, as well as other appropriate stakeholders, on its levy rules. However, clause 54(2) sets out that consultation is not needed for minor changes to the levy rules. This is intended to allow the regulator to make immaterial amendments or corrections such as typos or minor rewording without excessive bureaucratic burden.
The amendment would add a layer of unnecessary process that is unjustified given the extensive consultation requirements on substantial changes. It is not in anyone’s interest, especially the regulator’s, to stretch the definition of minor, which is a well-recognised legal term. If the regulator does not consult on a change that has made a material impact on a club, it could face a legal challenge through a judicial review. That will ensure that the regulator is accountable for what it considers minor.
Lincoln Jopp
I do not know whether the Minister has ever conducted a judicial review, but we could not get one done for £9,000.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but refer gently to my earlier comments. We are talking about typos and very minor changes. I give that example to show that the regulator is accountable for what it considers minor.
On amendment 103, requiring the regulator to publish the information on costs laid out in clause 54(4) six months before the chargeable period would create an operational challenge and would simply not work in practice. The regulator would have to estimate its costs for a chargeable period, having only half a year’s costs to base it on. That could lead to inaccurate levy charges, which could see the regulator underfunded or clubs needlessly burdened. The current requirement to publicise charges as soon as reasonably practicable strikes the right balance between adequate notice for clubs and operational flexibility for the regulator to ensure an accurate and appropriate levy charge.
For the reasons I have set out, I cannot accept the amendments.
Mr French
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, which was fairly limited. I do not have enough confidence in her replies to withdraw the amendments. We are concerned about the impact on clubs and about the loophole in the interpretation of minor changes. I am not clear on the regulator’s accountability to stop scope creep. I suggested a number of options that the Government might look to adopt instead and did not hear any response to them. On that basis, and linked to some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, I wish to press the amendments to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 54 imposes a statutory duty on the regulator to consult the Secretary of State, His Majesty’s Treasury and regulated clubs, as well as other appropriate stakeholders, on its levy rules. This requirement to consult on draft levy rules will ensure that the views of clubs are considered as the regulator determines its charging methodology.
The statutory requirement in the clause to consult the Secretary of State and the Treasury will provide further scrutiny and assurance that the regulator’s proposed methodology is fair and proportionate. Allowing the regulator to propose its own charging structure within the strict safeguards outlined in clause 53, and with consultation requirements, enhances its independence and allows for greater scrutiny and accountability of the regulator.
The regulator can be held directly accountable for its charging decisions and the outcomes they produce. The levy is of course an operational matter that should be determined independently by the regulator, in consultation with those it will affect. The regulator will have the necessary information to design a levy based on a robust financial assessment of clubs to ensure that charges are fair and evidence-based. Giving the regulator the discretion to set charges reinforces operational independence and mirrors the approach of other regulators, such as Ofcom and the Financial Conduct Authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Duties to notify and consult the IFR
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
To achieve its objectives, which include a club financial soundness objective, a systemic financial resilience objective and a heritage objective, the regulator will need information from the relevant competition organisers. The clause places a duty on the competition organisers to provide that information, and in the event that they do not, they would be liable to be sanctioned.
A competition organiser must notify the regulator if there is a risk that the regulator may not fulfil its objectives. That is with regard to the club financial soundness objective or the regulator’s systemic resilience objective. In addition, the organiser will need to notify the regulator if it is in breach of a commitment it made as an alternative to a financial discretionary licence condition, or if a club has breached the rules of a specific competition run by the organiser.
The organiser will also have to consult the regulator if it proposes to change its own rules. That is necessary given the interaction between the regulator’s regulation and that of a specified competition organiser. The regulator wants its own regulation to be necessary and proportionate and not to overburden the clubs. It is therefore important to understand any changes in other rules that clubs need to abide by, given that they may increase or decrease the financial risk of clubs.
In all cases, the relevant information will act as an additional source of data to inform the regulator of risks within the industry and whether the regulator needs to impose additional regulation or proceed to enforcement and sanction to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the industry. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
The clause sets out a series of duties that require various football stakeholders, including leagues and governing bodies, to notify and consult the Government’s new regulator in certain circumstances. At its core, the clause is intended to improve co-ordination and to prevent regulatory surprises, which in principle is reasonable. We all agree that where the governance of the game affects financial sustainability or club integrity, the Government’s regulator should be aware and engaged.
I will focus on subsection (6), which is a far more consequential provision than it might first appear. I believe it strikes at the very heart of one of the most sensitive and important issues in football governance: the independence of sport from Government control. Subsection (6) imposes a statutory duty on specified competition organisers to consult the regulator when they either add or remove a relevant rule of a specified competition, or vary a relevant rule of a specified competition. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East about when the regulator is involved in a competition and when it is not, with regard to the FA Cup. Some clarity on that would be much appreciated.
In short, the provision means that competitions such as the Premier League, the EFL and the FA Cup would be required—based on the wording of this part of the Bill—to consult the Government’s football regulator every time they change or amend a rule deemed to be relevant by the regulator itself. That might sound innocuous, but let us be clear about what it means in practice: for the first time, a politically appointed regulator, accountable to the Secretary of State, who has received donations from that regulator, would be given a formal, statutory role in the internal rule-making processes of English football competitions.
This is not a light-touch oversight mechanism; we fear it might end up being a direct institutional influence. As we know, it is not compatible with UEFA’s requirements on the non-interference of Government. UEFA statutes are clear that national football associations and their affiliated leagues and competitions must be free from political or Government control. The relevant rule is article 7bis (2) of the UEFA statutes, which states:
“Member Associations shall manage their affairs independently and with no undue influence from third parties.”
Article 9 goes on to state:
“A Member Association may in particular be suspended if state authorities interfere in its affairs in such a significant way that...it may no longer be considered as fully responsible for the organisation of football-related matters in its territory”.
It is pretty clear that the FA will no longer be considered fully responsible for the organisation of football-related matters in its territory should the Bill pass with this provision. Moreover, FIFA echoes that approach in its regulations, particularly in article 14 of the FIFA statutes, which ensures that member associations, such as the FA, remain autonomous and free from governmental or political influence. Article 15 of the FIFA statutes further requires members to be neutral in matters of politics and religion, to be independent, and to avoid any forms of political interference.
Subsection (6) brings us dangerously close to the line, if not across it. Unfortunately for the Minister, the Government seem to be on the wrong side of that line. I will press the Minister on that point, because however carefully the clause may have been worded in terms of consultation, in reality it inserts the Government’s new regulator into the core rule-making processes of the football pyramid. Once that principle is established, the scope can grow.
We know that there are international concerns about scope creep, as I mentioned when speaking to amendment 97.
“UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep within the IFR. While the initial intent of the IFR is to oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and heritage assets, there is always a risk that, once established, the IFR may expand its mandate beyond these areas”.
Those are not my words.
Will the Minister confirm whether UEFA has been consulted on the drafting of the clause, and whether the Government have received written assurances that this level of regulatory involvement is compatible with UEFA’s independence rules? If she has, will she place a copy in the Library? If she has received any correspondence to the contrary, will she also place that in the Library so that the Committee has confidence ahead of Third Reading and can scrutinise the provision properly? What safeguards are in place to prevent this from being interpreted—either in Brussels or somewhere else—as a breach of sporting autonomy?
This is not theoretical—it is a real and dangerous risk for English football. Let us remember, in recent years, that other countries have faced disciplinary threats or warnings for perceived interference in football. We have seen federations sanctioned before. National teams and clubs have been threatened with exclusion from competitions. For example, Greece was briefly suspended from international football in 2006 after the Greek Government passed a law that interfered—that was the term used—with the autonomy of the Greek football federation, in violation of UEFA and FIFA regulations. In 1999, Moldova’s clubs and national team faced a ban from UEFA competitions, after it was deemed that there was political interference in the running of its football federation. In 2002, FIFA suspended Zimbabwe and Kenya from international competitions due to perceived Government interference in the football administrations of those countries.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for his points. Clubs will be subject to a number of rules from different football authorities. Failure to comply with them may indicate that the club is in some financial difficulty and may prompt the regulator to assess the risk profile of the club. Changes in a competition’s rules may lead to clubs taking additional risks or may threaten the financial soundness of the system. The regulator therefore needs to be aware of such changes so that it is in a position to reassess the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and whether, as a result of the rule change, additional regulation is needed.
The shadow Minister did accept that there is no veto in the clause. I reiterate once again that UEFA are happy with the Bill as drafted. He drew the Committee’s attention to a specific line in the Bill, but I remind him that it has not been changed from the previous iteration of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Part 6: overview and interpretation
Max Wilkinson
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 56, page 45, line 39, after “organisers” insert
“or by a regulated club”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 56, page 46, line 4, after “organiser” insert
“or directly received by a regulated club”.
Amendment 78, in clause 56, page 46, line 17, after “organiser” insert “or a regulated club”.
Amendment 79, in clause 56, page 46, line 24, after “organisers” insert
“or by any club participating in a competition organised by one of those organisers”.
Amendment 80, in clause 57, page 47, line 9, after “organisers” insert
“or by a regulated club”.
Amendment 81, in clause 57, page 47, line 19, leave out from “revenue” to “in” in line 21 and insert
“received by one specified competition organiser or regulated club in or in respect of that season compared to the relevant revenue received by that specified competition organiser or regulated club”.
Amendment 82, in clause 57, page 47, line 29, after “organisers” insert
“, or by any regulated club participating in a competition organised by one of those organisers,”.
Max Wilkinson
Clubs in the English football pyramid currently barter as a collective for funding from broadcasters, but it is not hard to imagine a future in which Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea—the hon. Member for Spelthorne has now gone so I can say that—or other big clubs decide that they are going to barter alone. That has happened in other European countries. In fact, Spain had to legislate to stop Barcelona and Real Madrid cashing in on their massive marketable machine that massively distorted the Spanish game.
These amendments are fairly simple. They build in a future failsafe to stop the threat of that happening. If it does happen, the revenue gained by those clubs will be taken into account in the redistribution of funds in the game. It seems like a logical failsafe to introduce to the Bill, which we hope will be accepted.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for his amendments. We understand the intent behind them but believe that the drafting of the Bill sufficiently captures the current primary sources of revenue in the game. We will discuss clause 56 more fully during the clause stand part debate, but to summarise briefly, among other things, it defines which revenue streams are in scope of the backstop process. Revenue in scope is called “relevant revenue” and is limited in the Bill to revenue received by a league for broadcast rights to league matches.
Broadcast revenue is undisputedly the main source of revenue in English football, but we acknowledge that that may not always be the case. Football’s financial landscape is dynamic and its economic model may not remain static. That is why the Bill already allows for the definition of “relevant revenue” to be amended if necessary. The Secretary of State can amend the definition by making regulations, but only after consultation with the leagues, the regulator and the FA. That flexibility future-proofs the definition of “relevant revenue” against potential changes in the structure of the industry while ensuring that the definition remains firmly rooted in the current reality.
We expect that, throughout the distributions process, the leagues will effectively represent the interests of their constituent clubs. However, the backstop process, including the final proposal stage, is ultimately about resolving distributions between the leagues. It is about how money earned by the leagues flows from one league to another, not between individual clubs. It is therefore right that, given how finances currently flow, it is revenue received by the leagues as a whole, not individual clubs, that should be considered. I am therefore unable to accept the amendments.
Max Wilkinson
We recognise the numbers—although we Liberal Democrats now outnumber the official Opposition—so we will not press this to a vote. However, it is worth considering that, in future, we might end up in a situation where some of our bigger clubs start to try to negotiate on their own for their broadcast revenue. The Minister did not reassure me that that could not happen. As I understand it, we do not have legislation that would stop that. There is nothing in the game to stop that apart from Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City deciding to play together nicely.
Although we are not reassured, there is no point in forcing this to a vote. But we hope that the comments may be taken forward and taken into account by the regulator in future, and perhaps we will have this discussion again as and when those big clubs decide that they are going to kick up a stink and try to ruin the rest of football for everyone else. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 56, page 46, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) In this Part, revenue received by a specified competition organiser is ‘relevant revenue’ if—
(a) it is revenue received as a result of the sale or acquisition of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches included in a competition organised by the specified competition organiser, and
(b) it is not revenue that the specified competition organiser distributes to a club by virtue of a team operated by the club being relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser.”
Clause 56 introduces the framework for the resolution process, which is a formal mechanism through which the Government’s new regulator may intervene to help to resolve disputes between football authorities, competitions and clubs in certain prescribed areas. The clause is important because it sets the boundaries of when and how the Government’s new regulator may be invited, or, in some cases, compelled to step into the room on issues that until now have been managed internally within the football pyramid.
We understand the intention behind this process. It reflects years of unresolved tensions in the game between different tiers of the pyramid, between governing bodies, and, most notably, between the Premier League and the EFL. Clause 56 and the following clauses in part 6 provide the bones of a system for dispute resolution, in the hope of reaching consensus where negotiation has failed. In principle, that has merit. However, we believe that the clause as drafted risks crossing a line—not into oversight, but into interventionism. It risks turning the regulator from a referee into a participant, and that risk becomes very real when we consider what types of decisions might fall within that process.
That is why I have tabled amendment 124, which would exclude parachute payments to the regulated clubs from the scope of the resolution process, as was the case in the Bill that the Minister supported during the previous Parliament. Clause 56 is not procedural, but foundational. It defines who can apply to trigger the resolution process, namely certain governing bodies and competition organisers, and what is meant by the term “relevant revenue”. In subsection (2), this is revenue received
“as a result of the sale or acquisition of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches included in a competition organised by the specified competition organiser, or…from any other source specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
In essence, the provisions allow disputes over financial redistribution to be brought before the Government’s new regulator, which may then facilitate a resolution or, in some cases, take further steps to impose one. The specific issue we have with the clause, which was introduced by the Government, relates to the parachute payments of financial support offered by the Premier League to clubs that are relegated to the EFL to help them adjust to the significant drop in broadcasting and commercial income. This is obviously an important point, given the wage bills and so on when clubs go down, but it is never far from being controversial. Some see the payments as being necessary to ensure financial continuity and competition in the Premier League on the way up, while others argue that they distort competition in the Championship on the way down, solidifying clubs as so-called yo-yo clubs that go up and down regularly.
Bringing parachute payments within the scope of the regulator’s resolution process, as clause 56 does, takes a significant step towards Government involvement in revenue redistribution among private members of the competition. That is not regulation; it is reallocation. In our view, it is an inappropriate function for a state-backed regulator.
The amendment does not oppose the resolution process in principle; it supports it, and in fact returns the Bill to what the Minister previously supported. Can she tell us what has changed, and why she felt the need to make the change when she previously had no issue with this part of the Bill? My amendment seeks to make sure that the Government’s regulator does not intervene in areas that are already managed by mutual agreement between competitions.
Parachute payments are, by their nature, a Premier League solution to what is often a Premier League problem. They are not imposed on the EFL or funded by it, and although their knock-on effects may be debated—I have my own views on that—they should not be subject to arbitration by a third party.
If we allow the Government’s regulator to adjudicate disputes over parachute payments, we risk setting a precedent that any form of commercial agreement, no matter how internal, can be referred for outside resolution. We believe that that would be a mistake, and would likely undermine the willingness of top-flight clubs to continue sharing revenue in any form at all. If the Minister starts this process off on the wrong foot with clubs and this is not done in the right way, we fear that resentment would set in from day one. With the top flight already questioning—
Jon Pearce
Does the shadow Minister agree that parachute payments are a very important financial factor in the EFL? From my experience as a Derby County fan—many things go back to this—I know that we ended up in administration because we chased and tried to compete with clubs that had parachute payments, and ultimately could not stay within the financial fair play regime. How does the shadow Minister see that being tackled? It is a fundamental flaw and it is driving clubs much closer to administration, and to the wall, in many cases.
Mr French
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s experience with Derby, and I understand his point. That is why I said there are a number of opinions, and this a very controversial subject. I have engaged with EFL clubs as part of this process, and we get a variety of opinions, even before we get to asking the Premier League clubs for their opinion, so I absolutely understand his point. This amendment is about trying to exclude parachute payments from this part of the Bill, rather than trying to take a decision on what parachute payment levels should be in any shape or form. That is the distinction we seek to make with the amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for the amendment, as it gives me the opportunity to speak to one of the key changes made in the new version of the Bill that this Government introduced. The amendment would take parachute payments out of the scope of the backstop, as they were in the previous Government’s Bill. The regulator needs to be able to consider all relevant revenue sources as part of the backstop process to get an accurate picture of any proposal’s impact on financial sustainability. That is why it was right to amend the definition of “relevant revenue” to ensure parachute payments could be considered as part of the backstop if necessary.
The shadow Minister pointed out that I supported the Bill when in Opposition, but I draw his attention to an amendment I put down then to this effect. We have had a clear and consistent view on this issue throughout the passage of both Bills through Parliament. We believe that allowing the regulator to make more informed decisions, rather than restricting what it can consider, will help to achieve the best possible outcome for the future of the game.
Mr Betts
This amendment would drive a coach and horses through the whole part of the Bill that deals with the proper distribution of football revenues. The shadow Minister is saying that it is quite reasonable that 80% of the money that the Premier League gives to other clubs should go to the handful of clubs who get parachute payments. It completely destroys competition in the Championship, and means that the clubs coming down often end up with multiples of the solidarity payments that the clubs who do not get parachute payments received. It is against the whole purpose and spirit of the legislation and the clause.
I know the previous Government would not listen to the idea of parachute payments being included; I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to the concerns that have been raised by the majority of clubs, particularly in the EFL, and I hope that she resists any attempt to undermine the stand she has taken.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 56, page 46, line 27, leave out
“means an order under section 62(1) or (3)”
and insert
“has the meaning given by section (Distribution orders)(6)”.
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4.
The amendment is consequential on Government new clause 4, which we will debate later. Although it depends on that later change, the amendment would change clause 56, which is why we are discussing it now. We will also discuss clause 56 in more detail later, but one of the things it does is set out key definitions of key terms used throughout the backstop provisions. One of those defined terms is “distribution order”, which is the order made by the regulator at the end of the backstop process. It is designed to resolve the questions for resolution if the leagues have not managed to do so during mediation. Currently, the Bill’s definition of “distribution order” refers to clause 62, but we propose to remove clause 62 and replace it with new clause 4. New clause 4 completely changes the final stage of the backstop process. I met the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, to discuss this ahead of the Bill Committee. It moves the backstop away from a binary, winner-takes-all model, and allows the regulator discretion to design a solution to distribution issues.
We will have a chance to debate that fully when we debate clause 62, so I will withhold some of my comments until we get to that point. This simple amendment just updates the definition of “distribution order”, so that it appropriately refers to new clause 4 instead of clause 62. It is vital that we make these sorts of consequential changes, to ensure that the legislation remains coherent. Therefore I hope that Members will support this amendment.
Mr Betts
As the Minister said, we will come on to debate these issues later, but again, I just want to place it on the record that she has been really listening to concerns that have been raised about the pendulum nature of the previous backstop. This is a much better process, which we will come on to discuss in more detail. Thanks to the Minister, we will discuss it further, but it is a much better framework that we will now be putting in place for the regulator to decide on any disputes or failures to agree between the leagues.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 56, page 46, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment removes the definition of “the question or questions for resolution” which is now superfluous.
Stephanie Peacock
I begin by acknowledging the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. I appreciate him putting that on the record. Of course, we will have a fuller debate on the broader change later, so as I said, I will reserve my wider comments till we get to that point.
The backstop aims to ensure that where the industry cannot resolve the issue, revenue is distributed between the leagues in a sustainable way that furthers the regulator’s objectives. As I will set out in more detail when we debate clauses 57 and 58, it allows the leagues to apply to the regulator to intervene and help them to resolve specific issues that are in dispute between them. The issues that need resolving are referred to in the Bill as the “questions for resolution”. We will further discuss the process for triggering the backstop when we come on to debate clauses 57 to 59.
Put briefly, the triggering process requires a league applying to the regulator, showing that certain conditions listed in clause 57 are met, and putting forward a set of proposed “questions for resolution”. The other relevant league has a chance to respond to that proposal. The regulator will then consider the application and the response, and will decide whether to trigger the process. If it decides to trigger, it also decides exactly which questions must be taken forward and resolved through the backstop process. Therefore, the questions for resolution are set out at the very beginning and carry through, determining the scope of the whole process. They are the questions that the leagues discuss in mediation, as we will see when we debate clause 60, and they limit the scope of any regulator distribution order—something that we will discuss further when we come on to debate Government new clauses 3 and 4—to issues of financial sustainability.
Setting the questions for resolution is therefore a very important step that demands a clear statutory process and a rigorous approach by the regulator. That is even more important in the light of the proposed changes that Government new clauses 3 and 4 will make. Those new clauses propose a new model for the backstop—a staged regulator determination. They move away from the binary, winner-takes-all, final-offer model and increase the regulator’s discretion to devise its own solution for distributions. Because of that increase in discretion for the regulator, it is important that the scope of the distributions process is well defined from the outset, so that all parties are clear about what the regulator will and will not rule on if the leagues ultimately cannot agree to an industry solution themselves.
These amendments therefore strengthen and clarify the process for—[Interruption.]
Stephanie Peacock
I have indeed—clearly.
These amendments therefore strengthen and clarify the process for setting the questions for resolution. They highlight the importance of a league proposing specific questions for resolution when it applies to the regulator. They emphasise that if the regulator agrees to trigger the backstop, it will not take a sweeping approach and try to rule on every possible aspect of distributions. It must set out specific questions that it will resolve, and its powers are then restricted to resolving those questions.
These amendments make it clear that questions must meet certain tests in order to be resolved through the backstop. Those tests are twofold. First, the regulator must consider that leaving the questions unresolved presents an apparent threat to the regulator’s objectives. Then they must consider that the questions could not be resolved within a reasonable time by the regulator exercising any of its other functions.
The amendments clarify that the regulator need not take forward all the questions proposed and that the regulator can modify the proposed questions. They will also require the regulator to take into account representations from the other league that accompany the application. That will give the regulator the flexibility to pick out which questions it is appropriate and within its remit to address, without forcing it to either accept every element of an application or reject the whole application outright.
The amendments also set out procedural requirements. They require the regulator to consult the FA before setting the questions for resolution, ensuring that the national governing body has a chance to raise any views about the scope of the backstop process. They will also ensure that the regulator transparently sets out what questions it has chosen and how it made that decision. The questions for resolution will then be taken forward into the mediation phase. That will ensure that all parties understand the specific aims of the mediation stage.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister is setting out how important it is to get the distribution arrangements right. This is the part of the Bill that may be the most critical in ensuring that the pyramid is sustainable, which is the objective. It is great that the Government are working hard to get the backstop arrangements right, as she said. Does she agree that, once the regulator is in place, it will be important to have the state of the game report already in place—with an analysis of what is going wrong in the financial distribution and how it could be put right—before a distribution agreement is made and the backstop powers are used to bring that about?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he touches on something we will discuss later. It is important that the state of the game report takes place swiftly. That is an important part of the Bill. Of course, it is a backstop, and we are keen that a football-led solution is the priority and that people get round the table. I often quote Dame Tracey Crouch, who was one of my predecessors as sport Minister, and obviously we know how involved she was in the Bill. In the previous Bill Committee, she made a short but very focused speech, which I encourage hon. Members to read, on how the backstop should be a backstop. I often quote that speech.
For the reasons I have set out, the amendments are vital for supporting our new backstop model, and I hope that they will be accepted. I commend them to the Committee.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 56 is the first clause of part 6, which relates to financial distributions and the backstop mechanism in its totality. I understand the desire on both sides to apply appropriate scrutiny to a part of the Bill that could significantly impact the future financial landscape of football, and I hope through this debate to demonstrate that the approach taken in part 6 is the most proportionate and effective one.
These backstop powers have been introduced to help ensure that an agreement can be reached between the leagues on the distribution of revenue from the selling of TV broadcast rights. If the leagues cannot agree a deal, it will allow the regulator to step in as a last resort and impose one. A solution to this issue is vital to ensure the future financial sustainability of the football pyramid. The process has been designed to encourage an industry solution while providing the assurance that, should one not be reached, the regulator can ensure that one is put in place.
The Government have listened to industry, to members of both this Committee and its equivalent in the last Parliament, and to concerns raised in the other place. We have taken on board the points raised regarding the original distribution model in the Bill, and we have therefore tabled targeted amendments to improve the mechanism. As I have said more than once, I will set out the detail in a later group. We are confident that the regulator will have the powers necessary to ensure a timely, satisfactory distribution order, while not unduly inhibiting the ability of industry to resolve the issue itself.
Clause 56 sets out an overview of the backstop powers and outlines some key definitions that are important for clearly setting out the scope of these powers, including “relevant revenue”, which I will come on to in just a moment. Importantly, this clause also makes clear right at the outset in subsection (1) that the regulator can impose a distribution order only if the leagues are unable to reach an agreement during the backstop process. In other words, even after the process has been triggered, a regulator-imposed solution remains a last resort, only to be used if industry fails to strike a deal.
One of the key terms defined in this clause is “relevant revenue”. It expressly includes broadcast revenue because this is the predominant source of revenue for the relevant leagues, and this is the revenue that underpins the financial flows between the leagues. This clause also allows the Secretary of State to specify other kinds of revenue to be included as “relevant revenue”. This is simply to future-proof the policy; for instance, if broadcast revenue is no longer the main source of income for the leagues. However, there are safeguards on the use of this power. The Secretary of State must consult the regulator, the FA and the relevant leagues, and can use this power only when there has been a material change of circumstances. Any use of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament.
The previous Government’s version of the Bill explicitly excluded parachute payments from the definition of “relevant revenue”. Our version of the Bill no longer makes this distinction, allowing the inclusion of parachute payments where appropriate. This change was made to ensure that the regulator can consider all relevant aspects of revenue distribution as it makes a financial assessment of the game. Parachute payments can be included in the backstop only if the regulator considers that issues relating to parachute payments present an apparent threat to its objectives, such as the sustainability of the pyramid.
Another important definition in this clause is the “qualifying football season”. This determines which seasons can be in scope of the backstop. In effect, it limits the regulator’s power to only the next six football seasons, which prevents excessively long regulator orders or premature applications for seasons far in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, accordingly 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
Backbench Business
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
Humanist Marriage
(1 day, 3 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
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the recognition of humanist marriages.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by declaring an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, to which Humanists UK provides the secretariat. Many Members present are also members of the APPG.
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to witness the joining of the hon. Member for Tamworth, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), who jointly requested this debate to discuss our wish to see humanist marriages made legal throughout the UK. We are grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate.
Humanists UK trains and accredits celebrants who, just this morning, will probably have conducted at least four weddings and a funeral. I pay tribute to such celebrants, one of whom conducted my grandmother’s funeral, but this debate is about humanist marriage. Why? Because despite conducting tens of thousands of ceremonies every year, including weddings, they are legally recognised in only some of the UK jurisdictions in which they operate, and are not legally recognised in England, Wales or the Isle of Man.
Humanist weddings are non-religious wedding ceremonies conducted by accredited humanist celebrants. Humanists UK defines humanists as non-religious people who rely on the scientific method to understand the universe. Humanists make ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and concern for others, and believe that meaning in life is something that we all discover for ourselves through seeking happiness and contributing to the wellbeing of others.
Humanist ceremonies are a manifestation of that philosophy—an expression of self-created meaning and shared happiness. Those ceremonies should be a profound reflection of the participants’ values and beliefs, their relationship, their families and friends, and their place in the world. Central to the ceremony is a focus entirely on the couple, ensuring that it is deeply personal, while remaining inclusive of all of those attending, irrespective of their diverse religious beliefs. Humanist weddings are a manifestation of the couple’s non-religious beliefs and identity, and they are built collaboratively with their loved ones to reflect all of their contributions.
It is rare for most non-religious people to express their beliefs publicly, and unlike religious people, there is no compulsion to attend a place of worship on a weekly basis. For those who choose to have a humanist wedding, it is an opportunity for a rare public expression of their beliefs, which makes their wedding feel all the more significant and makes it all the more tragic that such weddings are not legally recognised in England and Wales.
In creating such a ceremony, humanist celebrants can dedicate up to 40 hours—sometimes more—to working closely with the couple. That substantial time investment is focused on getting to know the couple so that the celebrant marrying them is not someone who they have just met on the day, but someone who they have a solid, personal relationship with. It is focused on a deep understanding of the couple, their shared values and their feelings for one another, enabling the creation of a ceremony with enduring impact. It is more than the one-time commitment that can be associated with other forms of marriage solemnisation.
The location of the ceremony often holds particular significance as well. The focus is on finding the place that will be most meaningful, which could be where the couple met, where they fell in love or where they got engaged; it could be a garden, their local beach or where they go on holiday. For example, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) had a humanist wedding. His partner is Scottish, and he told me that they picked Scotland over England for their marriage partly for that reason, but also because they wanted the marriage to be legal. They got married in the highlands in a place of huge personal significance for them.
Humanist marriages have legal recognition in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Ireland and Guernsey, but we have inequity within the UK because Wales and England remain the exception. The Welsh Government have long championed the change, but progress ultimately hinges on the UK Government’s willingness to act.
Humanist marriages have proved incredibly popular where they are legally recognised, with more humanist than religious marriages currently taking place in Scotland. The number of such weddings in Ireland and Northern Ireland has also grown enormously, but in England, the lack of legal recognition suppresses the huge demand.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. When it comes to equity, I am sure she is aware that the High Court ruled five years ago that there was an issue of discrimination. The approach since then has been that we need to wait for wholesale marriage reform, but this is a very simple change. Does she agree that the Government should just take it forward, given the overwhelming case for it, and not wait for wholesale marriage reform?
Sarah Edwards
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I will go on to give more detail about the challenges that we are facing, and about the easy option that we have for the Government. I hope that, after today, they will take that forward and I look forward to hearing more about that.
Thousands of people still have humanist weddings each year, but to do so, they must also undergo a separate civil marriage ceremony to gain legal status. That frequently imposes a significant financial burden, with weekend civil marriage fees often exceeding £600—a cost that religious couples do not face. The alternative statutory low-cost ceremonies can cost just £57, but they are increasingly difficult to access, with many authorities restricting their availability and location, and even limiting attendee numbers.
I can attest to those challenges, because my mother, Rosi, got married this year to her partner, Henry, in England. The limitations placed on the choices available for the civil ceremony were stark, and the restrictions meant that only my brother Joe and I were able to attend. There were just a handful of slots available in a six-month period, so the choice of a humanist wedding would have been welcome.
Beyond the financial and administrative burdens, the current dual-ceremony requirement creates distressing ambiguity for couples regarding the true date of their marriage. It is inadequate that the ceremony that holds the most personal and emotional significance for a couple is not recognised as the legal date of their union.
Why has legal recognition not yet been granted? Parliament gave the Government the power to introduce legal recognition for humanist marriages through a simple order under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, but the Act required a public consultation before any action could be taken. That consultation took place in 2014 and revealed overwhelming support—over 95% of people were in favour of legal recognition—but rather than acting on that clear mandate and drafting the necessary statutory instrument, the then Government referred the issue to the Law Commission for a broader review of marriage law, delaying the process indefinitely.
The main reason given at the time was concern about where those marriages could take place. The then Government argued that allowing humanist or other belief-based weddings in unrestricted locations might be unfair. They pointed out that most religious groups are limited to registered places of worship, and they worried it could seem unfair to non-religious, non-humanist couples who might want the same freedom of choice.
Although it is clear that flexibility of location holds particular importance in the humanist tradition, using that as a reason to block legal recognition has always felt disproportionate. In fact, Humanists UK recently obtained a briefing from Melanie Field, who has deep expertise in this area. She was the lead civil servant on the 2013 Act, and before that, the Equality Act 2010. More recently, she served as chief strategy and policy officer at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Her view is clear that
“The case for removing the discrimination against humanists by making an Order under the existing power in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, even if done as an interim measure pending wider reform, is overwhelming.”
She goes on to say that allowing humanist marriages to take place anywhere would not create new inconsistencies and, in fact, would align closely with the existing rules for Quaker and Jewish weddings. She sees no legal barrier, no disadvantage to other groups, and no reason that the Government cannot act.
The decision not to proceed in 2014, and the failure to act since, has meant that tens of thousands of couples have missed out on the kind of ceremony that truly reflects who they are. That injustice continues today. The 2014 decision led to a review in 2015, which led to another, broader review from 2018 to 2022. Each time, the scope expanded. What began as a simple consultation about humanist marriages—something that could have been resolved with a single statutory instrument—has now become a full-scale review of the entire marriage system. Even if that wider reform were worthwhile, it cannot be right that humanists have been left waiting all this time when a straightforward solution has been available from the start.
No end is in sight. In the 2020 High Court ruling, following a judicial review brought by six couples, the judge was clear that
“the present law gives rise to…discrimination”.
The court further stated that the Secretary of State could not
“simply sit on his hands”.
At the time, it accepted that Government inaction was only because the Law Commission review was under way—but that was five years ago. Is that justification still valid?
I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some positive news on the position that this new, progressive Labour Government are taking on the issue, because Labour Governments are at the forefront of moving the dial to reduce inequality across society and have always challenged discriminatory practices. I am proud of that legacy and I encourage the extension of our values to humanist marriages.
Let us not wait any more. The previous Conservative Government had ample time to resolve the issue, even after the Law Commission published its findings, yet despite the evidence, the public support and the legal clarity, they failed to act. Now, the responsibility and the opportunity rest with this Labour Government. This is not a complex or controversial reform; it is an easy win.
The legal recognition of humanist marriages led to a rise in the number of weddings in Scotland, and it would have excellent benefits for the wedding industry, boosting local economies and supporting small businesses. It will be hugely popular, and who does not love a good wedding? Polls consistently show that the majority of the public and, indeed, the majority of MPs support the legal recognition of humanist marriages. That support is growing as more and more couples are able to choose humanist ceremonies each year. Recognition would give the Government a legacy to be proud of—a legacy on a par with the legislation of same-sex marriage, as a moment of progress, of fairness and of aligning the law with the values of the peoples that they serve.
Let us not forget that that is what Labour promised: from 2014 to the last election, the Labour party made a clear and repeated commitment to lay the order once in power. We are keen to do that, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who is unable to attend today’s ceremony but said he would join us post nuptials at the reception, as he wishes to add his support. We request haste to end this discrimination and deliver a change that would give thousands of couples the right to have their deeply meaningful and humanist wedding legally recognised in every part of the UK. I ask the Minister: can we lay this legislation? We have had a very long engagement. Minister, will you marry our ambitions with your Government’s agenda? Can we finally set the date?
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I do not think that I need to remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. As everyone can see, a large number of people would like to speak, so rather than impose a rigid timescale, I will be grateful if you could all be kind to one another and speak for approximately four minutes.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I am delighted to co-lead this debate. Many problems that face this country and indeed the world are difficult to solve, but marriage equality for humanist weddings—as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), my constituency neighbour, pointed out—is something we can fix simply with the stroke of a pen. I therefore urge the Government to do so.
I will reflect on my own marriage, which was a humanist marriage. I am not religious, but I was raised going to church on Sundays and I went to a Catholic school, so I am familiar with the Catholic faith and have great respect for it. When it came down to it, however, a religious marriage did not feel right for me or my wife. The words someone needs to say at a church wedding just did not ring true for me, and the last thing I wanted to do on my wedding day was to lie.
The words we say on such a day are special and should be meaningful. The alternative to a religious marriage, in a place that is wanted, is therefore to have a registry office marriage with a celebration after, but I wanted the celebration to be the marriage—to combine, as religious ceremonies do, the legal act of marriage as defined by law and the deep and meaningful declarations of love made on the day.
That is why we decided to get married in Scotland. As my name suggests, I do not have ancestral connections to Scotland, but I often wear a tartan tie in this place because I am now so fond of the country in which I got married. I am today wearing the same tie that I got married in four years ago. Our humanist celebrant, Lesley, was absolutely wonderful. She guided us through the whole thing perfectly and even offered us a bit of advice on the snow gates in Braemar in December.
Everyone in England and Wales should have the same opportunity that has existed in Scotland for 20 years. Twenty years ago, Humanist Society Scotland wrote to the Registrar General and asked them to read the law as relates to religious marriages as also providing for humanist marriages. They were persuaded that, from a human rights perspective, given freedom of religion or belief, that had to happen, so they reinterpreted the law in exactly that way. No legislation was required, and so, on 18 June 2005, Karen Watts and Martin Reijns were married by a humanist celebrant at Edinburgh zoo.
When Scotland passed the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, the decision was made to update marriage law to put humanist marriages on a proper statutory footing. The first two same-sex marriages in Scotland were both humanist, and humanist marriages have only continued to grow in popularity since.
It is not just Scotland that has left England behind. In 2017, Laura Lacole and Eunan O’Kane applied to the Registrar General in Northern Ireland to ask for their marriage to be a humanist one. They asked for the law to be read similarly to the way it was read in Scotland. This was declined, but a court later found in their favour. As in Scotland, humanist marriages have since exploded in popularity in Northern Ireland.
To finish my tour of the home nations, the Welsh Government have repeatedly written to the UK Government over the years asking for a humanist marriage order to be laid or, failing that, for marriage law to be devolved to Wales. I am proud that my party has been committed to that for many years, and that it was a commitment in the last Liberal Democrat manifesto. I am also proud that the Liberal Democrats were in government in Scotland when humanist marriages were introduced there. The Liberal Democrats of course have a very good record on marriage reform. We can debate the merits of the coalition—as I am sure we will again and again—but one of the standout achievements was same-sex marriage. It is worth noting that the couple who had the first same-sex marriage in England and Wales, Peter McGraith and David Cabreza, are humanists and said they would have liked a humanist wedding.
Legal recognition of humanist marriage would especially benefit and support same-sex couples. LGBTQ people are significantly more likely to identify as non-religious, and many religious groups still do not allow same-sex marriages. Humanists UK tracks whether the ceremonies its celebrants do are for opposite sex or same-sex couples; as a result, we know that every year since 2013 more same-sex couples have chosen to have a humanist wedding without legal recognition than have had a religious same- sex marriage with legal recognition. That which there is clear demand.
Labour committed to action when in opposition; now they are in power, I urge the Government to listen to this debate. I would not change my wedding for the world, and Scotland now has a very special place in my heart, but would it not be lovely if a legacy of this Government was that such special memories can be made in England and Wales too?
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Marriage is one of the most profound commitments we can make. It offers us a lifelong partner to grow with, a loving relationship to strengthen us and mutual support throughout our lives. When two people choose to marry, it matters that they can do so in a ceremony that reflects their beliefs.
I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, to which Humanists UK provide the secretariat. However, I speak today not on behalf of any organisation or formal grouping, but on behalf of people like me who share strongly held beliefs and convictions about the world and their place in it.
I am sure that most people in this Chamber are familiar with what humanism is, but it is worth briefly setting it out. Humanism is the belief that this life is the only life we have, and that the world is a natural phenomenon that we can understand, with no supernatural side. It is a worldview grounded in reason, evidence and compassion—a commitment to living ethically and meaningfully, not because of fear or doctrine but because of a shared humanity and a belief in people.
For those of us who hold these beliefs, they shape the biggest moments of our life, including marriage. Humanist weddings are personal, thoughtful and deeply meaningful. They are conducted by celebrants who share the couple’s values and are co-created to reflect the couple’s commitment and outlook on life. They are no less significant than religious ceremonies, yet right now humanist couples in England and Wales face a fundamental unfairness, because their weddings are not legally recognised.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) set out, the Government already have the power to right this injustice. The reform does not require primary legislation and it does not need a review. The Secretary of State already has the power, under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, to lay an order, and a draft order already exists. It would require just 90 minutes of debate in each House. We could be done tomorrow—well, maybe not tomorrow; we are all a bit busy tomorrow.
Instead of the Government using that existing power, there have been delays and the issue has been referred for more and more reviews. The latest was the Law Commission’s full review of marriage law, which produced proposals that, in my opinion, would be difficult and slow to implement. The High Court made it clear that once the review was finished, the Government should act, but rather than taking that straightforward step, we have new proposals that complicate the process unnecessarily.
I fundamentally disagree with some of the proposals, and I will highlight my concerns in the hope that I might influence the Minister’s thinking about any new legislation. I am particularly worried by the Law Commission’s proposal to permit commercial celebrants—anyone, regardless of training—to become authorised wedding officiants with the same powers as registrars. I understand the impetus to expand choice, but this risks turning weddings into Las Vegas-style free-for-alls, which would be unprecedented in Europe.
Marriage is a binding contract between two people and the state. It is a choice that takes huge commitment and should not be entered into lightly. It is of such significance that we cannot reduce it to a mere transaction or moment or entertainment. We have to safeguard the integrity of the marriage ritual. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that how we get married matters. It signifies the seriousness of the contract we enter into. That obviously does not mean that it needs to be dour or cheerless—my wedding very much was not—but we need to safeguard the integrity and meaning of the ceremony itself.
Humanist celebrants are carefully trained. They are insured, accredited and supported through continuing professional development. That commitment is what gives their ceremonies the weight and respect they deserve. It is not just humanists who have concerns; the Church of England and local registrars share them. I rarely use the word “sacred”, but here it is entirely fitting. Allowing a free market for celebrants risks undermining the solemn and profound nature of the marriage contract. I should also highlight the aspects of the commission’s proposals that I support. For instance, the move away from the building-based system is a positive step.
As society is changed, so too is marriage. As a woman, I am very aware of the changes in both marriage and society. However, the values that marriage represents—love, commitment and stability—are fundamental to the fabric of our society, and I do not think that anyone in this room would challenge their importance. If we want to truly uphold and embed those principles in our society, they must be accessible to everyone, regardless of belief or background.
Marriage rights should reflect the profundity of the commitment made. Put simply, every citizen of this country, whatever their belief system, should have the same right to equal recognition of their solemn commitment, made in accordance with their beliefs. I hope we can act on this opportunity and finally introduce this long-overdue change.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing the debate.
I declare an interest: in September 2011, I had a humanist wedding. We chose a beautiful setting in the countryside and got married in a carpentry workshop, where my husband had worked for many years before all his workmates beautifully transformed it into a unique setting for a wedding. Many guests said it was one of the most special weddings they had been to, partly because it was so different from a traditional wedding. The kids loved the ice-cream van that gave out free ice creams all afternoon. The vows were written by us, the ceremony was designed by us, and we were both able to include our children in the ceremony, which was very meaningful. Having lost my first husband to cancer eight years before, the ceremony was a really special and joyous occasion marking the beginning of a new chapter for all of us after some very bleak times.
But we did have to get married two days before in a registry office, because our ceremony was not legal, so I now have two wedding anniversaries, which is complicated enough—three if we count the first one as well. The occasion that I remember as my wedding was not actually my wedding, and that feels wrong and outdated in a modern society.
I would like to compare the situation here with Scotland, where humanist marriages have been legally recognised and have exploded in number. There are more humanist marriages there than all the other faith and belief-based marriages combined. It is hard to unpick cause and effect, but in Scotland the legal recognition of humanist marriages coincided with the end of a long-term decline in the number of marriages there. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame talked about how he travelled to Scotland so that he could have a legally recognised humanist marriage. No doubt thousands of others have done the same thing—the modern-day equivalent of eloping to Gretna Green—but that really should not be necessary. It is time for England and Wales to catch up with Scotland and Northern Ireland, where humanist marriages are recognised.
It is well past time to allow people to have a humanist ceremony recognised in law. The 1,200 couples a year who have humanist weddings here should have the same opportunity to marry in line with their beliefs as their religious counterparts. It is needed under the Human Rights Act 1998. The High Court ruled in 2020 that the lack of legal recognition is discrimination, and said the Government have to act.
As we have heard, 95% of respondents to one consultation supported it. A 2025 YouGov poll found 70% in favour and only 15% opposed, and there was also a majority of every religious group in favour. This is not a controversial decision.
It is also good for marriage: freedom of information data from Scotland shows that couples married in a humanist ceremony—I am very pleased to read this—are almost four times less likely to divorce compared with all other types of marriage.
Lastly—the Government will like this bit—it is free. Laying an order under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act would cost nothing. All it needs is a positive affirmation.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Many thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and others who secured the debate.
The speakers we have heard already have spoken so powerfully about why this simple change in the law needs to happen. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) talked about what must have been a cost to friends and relatives to have to go to Scotland to have both parts of the event in one place. As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) just said, the logistics of having to organise two functions are not great. She said she would have liked to have both parts—the formal legal part and the celebratory part—as one.
I must declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group, although I am actually a Quaker. As far as I can see—I think I am right in this—marriage in this country is, at its minimum, when completely stripped down, the public signing of a legal document between two people, with witnesses. It is just a legal document. But most of us end up adding to it the faith element, the friends and family element and the celebration.
There is an inequality in England and Wales. For many, traditionally, the faith component is important. Most weddings in this country can happen in the place of faith in one and the same event. In England and Wales, civil and religious marriages are permitted, but it is not possible to have a humanist marriage, or one conducted according to any non-religious system or belief. They have to be in two parts.
Quakers, for historical reasons, have had the right to hold formally agreed marriages anywhere, including outdoors—as can Jews—according to our rites and ceremonies, with a registered member of the congregation officiating. Actually, thanks to the wording of a Quaker wedding, the couple can in effect marry each other, because we do not officially have any people who are closer to God than anyone else; we are all equal in the sight of God. The wording is: “Friends, I take this, my friend Laura, to be my spouse, promising, through divine assistance, to be unto her a loving and faithful spouse, so long as we both on earth shall live.” [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and I are both married to other people—
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
There are lots of witnesses.
Ruth Cadbury
Anyway, I fully support the Humanist Society’s position to allow a couple to be married by a celebrant who shares the couple’s values and beliefs, one that works in Scotland, Northern Ireland and many other jurisdictions across the world.
I would have some concerns if the law was opened up to any non-religious belief organisations. There needs to be solemnity and dignity in the process. I would also have some concern about the potential for celebrants to sell their services as a commercial transaction, so there are some aspects of the Law Commission proposals that concern me. However, one part of the Law Commission’s recommendations that I support is for marriage to be based on the officiant rather than the building. As I have said, for Quakers, there is no such thing as a consecrated building or space in our faith, so as long as the local Quaker who is trained and formally registered is present, the marriage is legal. It can be done out of doors. I know that many humanists value nature and choose to celebrate their weddings out of doors but do not want to have a two-pronged celebration and the official bit as is currently the case. I therefore support a change in the law.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I also declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group. I rise to speak about the arguments advanced in the past against legal recognition of humanist marriages and why I do not think they hold much weight. However, I will start with my personal situation.
I got married last year. My husband and I would have loved to have had a legally recognised humanist marriage, but because of the previous Government’s endless delays, we were denied that chance. A couple of years ago, I wrote to my MP—not me, but the former Conservative Member for Stourbridge—asking that the matter be resolved following the High Court ruling. The response I got was positive, saying that there was an ambition to remedy the situation, but clearly they were not ambitious enough.
My husband and I chose to marry at the Thomas Robinson building in Stourbridge, which is a beautiful old chapel converted to a register office. We asked about having a humanist celebrant lead the proceedings but were told that would not be possible. We would have needed a separate ceremony, which would have meant not only an additional cost to our budget and organising another event, but that our legally recognised marriage would not have been meaningful to our beliefs.
The registrar offered us a choice of wording for the ceremony from extremely religious to completely neutral. The neutral wording suited us best, but it stripped away all meaning and sentiment along with the religious references. As humanists, we believe in compassion, reason and ethical approaches to human life, giving people the right and responsibility to give meaning to shape their own lives, which makes the denial of humanist marriage even more ironic.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) referred to a new briefing from Melanie Field about why the Government should legally recognise humanist marriages. If anyone is an expert on this matter, it is Melanie. She literally led for the civil service on the Marriage Act and our Equality Act 2010. Her time at the EHRC further demonstrates her human rights expertise and no one else has been as intimately involved in both bits of legislation, so when she says that the case for making a humanist marriage order is overwhelming, that should surely carry some authority.
In Melanie’s briefing, she considers the 2020 High Court judgment. As we have heard, the judge ruled that
“there is a continuing discriminatory impact upon those who seek to manifest their humanist beliefs through marriage”,
but that it could be justified, “at this time”, by the then ongoing Law Commission review. Melanie says that this may now be different. Five years have passed since that judgment and three since the review concluded, and no action has since occurred. Obviously, that is first and foremost the fault of the previous Government, but the upshot, Melanie thinks, is that it is possible that the Court would now reach a different conclusion should a further case be brought, and that the case for removing the discrimination against humanists by making an order under the power in the marriage Act, even if done as an interim measure pending wider reform, therefore seems overwhelming.
Melanie considers various concerns raised against that course of action, mainly in a 2014 consultation run by the Conservatives. I will run through them briefly. First, a concern was expressed that the change would lead to inconsistencies with outdoor marriages. Those inconsistencies already exist, as we have heard, with some religious groups already able to hold outdoor marriages. Civil marriages also started happening outdoors in 2021. Secondly, she considers the concern that it would be unfair to allow humanist marriages on approved premises when religious groups cannot have them. She thinks it would be lawful because humanists may have intrinsic belief-based reasons to want their marriages on approved premises.
Thirdly, Melanie considers concerns that there may be other belief groups who could try to gain legal recognition, but no such other groups exist or have been identified. Fourthly, she refers to the supposed risk of commercialisation. Again, no evidence is offered that that would happen, and, as we have heard, in Scotland and Northern Ireland there are laws prohibiting profit and gain by religious or humanist celebrants. Finally, she considers the desirability—or otherwise—of piecemeal reform, and any added complexity that might arise in the law, but she thinks that this concern is insignificant when set against the context of people being denied their human rights.
Melanie also notes that the supposed solution to this issue, the Law Commission reforms, have been criticised by religious groups and others, including for devaluing marriage in a way that means they do not in fact appear to be a simple solution. She also notes that the previous Government pursued many piecemeal marriage reforms while saying that they were against such measures.
In conclusion, the humanist marriage order is not complex. It is a simple, cost-neutral change. It just recreates for humanists the legal provisions that already exist for Quakers. They are tried and tested, and they should be extended so that other couples are not refused their rights as I was.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I am afraid that I will now impose a four-minute limit on speeches. I apologise to people for coughing, and will endeavour not to. Please do not be too distracted by me.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I am sorry about your sore throat, Dame Siobhain; I hope it does not trouble you too much. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for securing the debate. I have put on the record previously that I am a humanist and a member of Humanists UK. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale for taking on the baton from me to become chair of the all-party parliamentary humanist group. She will be a great champion for its work. Might I add that it is very nice to be surrounded by more “out” humanists?
As a humanist, I believe that we have one life, and we shape that in the here and now. My values are based on reason, empathy and concern for other human beings. In line with that, I believe that everyone should have the right to live the life they choose. I believe that every person, whether religious or non-religious, has the right to get married in accordance with their own personal beliefs. A humanist wedding is a non-religious ceremony. It differs from a civil wedding in that it is reflective of the humanist beliefs and values of the couple, and conducted by a humanist celebrant. Unfortunately, in England and Wales a glaring inconsistency remains. The law, as it stands, means that couples who choose a humanist wedding ceremony must still have a separate civil ceremony to make their union legally binding.
Humanist marriages are legally recognised elsewhere in the UK. Since 2005, they have been recognised in Scotland; indeed, we have heard that they now account for more weddings in Scotland than those conducted by any single religious denomination. Northern Ireland followed suit in 2018 after a landmark legal case and there was further legal recognition after that in Jersey in 2019 and in Guernsey in 2021. So, why is there not recognition in England and Wales?
The current system effectively discriminates against non-religious people by denying them the legal recognition given to religious ceremonies. It is not merely a matter of paperwork; it is about equality. Legalising humanist marriages could be done with ease, as has been argued so well by many others. The Government could act on the High Court ruling of 2020, which said that the current law is discriminatory, and lay an order so that humanist couples and celebrants can have legal recognition of their ceremonies.
That would also be a popular choice. A 2025 YouGov poll found that 70% of the public support the change. It is also supported by many of us, from all parties in the House, as well as by legal experts and human rights advocates. In fact, in this debate, in this Parliament, double if not triple the number of people support a change in the law than oppose it.
The last time that I participated in a debate on humanist marriages in this place was in January 2022, at which time the Minister answering for the then Conservative Government stated:
“The Government will carefully consider the Law Commission’s recommendations when the final report is published, and it is right for us to await the outcome of that.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 440WH.]
As we have heard today, that review was subsequently published in July 2022 and recommended reform of marriage law to allow for more inclusive ceremonies. Almost three years later, it is very disappointing that we have still not seen that change come to fruition. The Minister has stated that
“The Government will set out our position on weddings reform in due course.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 153.]
For humanists in England and Wales, continued dither and delay is extremely frustrating; indeed, it is not just frustrating, but discriminatory. I hope that our Government will now act and not delay justice any longer. Let us stand up for equality and for freedom of belief in all its meaningful forms.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
First of all, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. Secondly, it is also a pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) set out in this debate the reasons for humanist marriages and why they should be recognised.
On the question of humanist marriages being recognised, I ask myself why they are not. What is the problem? My hon. Friend made what I think amounts to an unimpeachable case as to why marriages of this nature should be facilitated, as other types and classifications of marriage are, and I thank Humanists UK for the briefing that it sent. I thought, “Shall I throw in some facts and figures?” No, I think other people are much better at that than I would be. It still comes back to the question of why we are debating this issue so many years on. I am not quite sure why we should have to reiterate this request time after time after time. But we are where we are, so I decided to participate in the debate with my tuppence-worth.
I wondered what my approach should be. As you know, Dame Siobhain, we think very carefully about these matters. As I said—facts, figures, statistics? I decided not to do that. Rhetoric has its place in debate. Who has not used rhetoric in their day? What about a little bit of polemic? Should I throw a little bit of polemic in? I decided not to. What about an historical examination of the nature of marriage going back thousands of years, because marriage predates, for example, any current religious timeline in relation to the concept? I decided not to do that, either.
Perhaps taking a different perspective might add a different angle to the debate—on the nature of marriage, so to speak. Indeed, who is impartial to a quote here or there from literature in one form or another? I began to think laterally, which I have to admit is a big challenge for me in most circumstances. I looked to my constituency for inspiration—it is a fantastic place to do so. A number of streets that date back to the 19th century that are named after characters in Shakespearean plays. On the surface, they are just street names. But lo and behold, they are named after characters who were married and who faced terrible challenges in getting married.
What has that got to do with what we are talking about today? That is a fair question. It elucidates that the debate must, in part, be about the nature of marriage, the commitment of marriage, and marriage in good faith. It must also be about the wishes of the people concerned to marry as they see fit, without duress and with, of course, appropriate safeguarding mechanisms. It is also about giving those who choose to do so the capacity to marry as they see fit, and for the process to be recognised as other marriages and ceremonies are.
Shakespeare uses marriage as one of the most prominent themes, if not the most prominent, in his repertoire. Does he talk about the service? No. Does he talk about the legalistic nature of it? No. He focuses on the personal nature of marriage: the relationships, the tensions, the feelings, as Beatrice and Benedick realise when they acknowledge, reluctantly, that they are to become partners in marriage. So, let us leave the last words to Shakespeare:
“Marriage is a matter of more worth
Than to be dealt in by attorneyship.”
This debate should not be much ado about nothing.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Just to warn the Front Benchers, I am going to reduce your time to nine minutes in order to keep the time limit for Back Benchers at four minutes.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. Like others, I commend the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) on securing this debate.
In 2009, I got married in the National Glass Centre in my constituency, in a humanist ceremony. Because, as other hon. Members have mentioned, that ceremony was not legally binding, we had to get legally married two days earlier in Sunderland Civic Centre. Choosing a humanist married reflected the shared values of my wife and me. With our humanist celebrant, we thoughtfully worked through what we wanted to say, and the commitments that we wanted to make to each other.
I would love to say that every marriage ends in a “happily ever after”. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) was right to draw attention to the lower divorce rates statistic. Unfortunately, my marriage has resulted in a separation. That is a cause of sadness for me, but the shared humanist values that we committed to when we embarked on our marriage still provide an enduring basis for a positive relationship between my wife and I to co-parent our children. Even if, unfortunately, “happily ever after” is not possible in every marriage, humanist values and celebrations have significant value in bringing children up, as other hon. Members have stated in this debate. I intend to do further work in this Parliament on positive parenting in separated families.
For the meat of my contribution, I will highlight how society has changed over the last 12 years, since the Government first gained the power to enact legal recognition of humanist marriages. Others have mentioned the steps made in nations of the UK other than England and Wales. I highlight the ongoing growth in the number of census respondents who are humanist or non-religious. The share of people ticking “no religion” in the census rose from 25% in 2011 to 37% in 2021—a significant rise. Around two thirds of people who get married are between the ages of 25 and 39, and among that group 48% of people ticked that they had “no religion” in the census.
The current law essentially means that around half of people of normal marriageable age are being denied the choice of having a legally binding marriage that conforms with their beliefs. More widely, we have seen other advances for humanism in the last 12 years. Humanism is increasingly becoming a recognised part of the school religious education syllabus. Humanists are now officially included in national moments, such as the service of remembrance and Holocaust Memorial Day. They provide input into the moral and ethical issues of our time. I worked in the NHS during the covid pandemic, and humanists were officially consulted on, and contributed to, some of the advice that we received from the Department of Health and Social Care’s moral and ethical advisory group.
A lot has happened in 12 years, yet humanist marriages are still not legally recognised. As others have said, it is overdue that we change that. The order is drafted and ready to go. We have had to wait far too long for this already. I look forward to hearing how we can get this done as quickly as possible.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), as well as the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for securing the debate.
It is a timely debate for me, as it was exactly this week 11 years ago that I had my humanist wedding. It was one of the most wonderful days of my life—my husband and I, surrounded by family and friends, on a beautiful, windswept and, fortunately, sunny beach in Devon, marking and celebrating our decision to spend our lives together. I had not really heard of a humanist wedding before I started planning one, but once we realised the constraints of a civil ceremony—the limits on readings, songs, numbers of guests and locations—we quickly decided that we wanted something else: a celebration of not just our formal commitment, but our beliefs and values.
Personally, although I have every respect for people of all faiths and none, it is through humanist values that I try to make sense of the world. For me, this is the one life that I have, and I try to live in the here and now, making decisions on what I feel and see that are based on logic, reason and evidence, and rooted in compassion, dignity and respect for other people. Because my husband sees the world in the same way, a humanist wedding was the right choice for us.
I pay tribute to our incredible humanist celebrant, David Pack, who sadly passed away a few years ago, but will forever remain a central part of our special day. He helped us to create a ceremony that spoke to our values, and I want to borrow his words about why humanist weddings are so important. He said:
“A lot of couples say they find it hypocritical to make promises before a god they don’t believe in…As humanists we believe that we can find a way of living and behaving decently without needing reference to any divine authority, drawing on our own human qualities: reason, emotion, experience and empathy”.
That is what a humanist wedding enables a couple to express at that key moment in their lives. We had wonderful feedback from our guests, many of whom had never been to a humanist wedding before but found it to be a very open, inclusive and moving ceremony, from the songs to the vows and the readings, many of which we had written together.
Although I could happily be sucked into reminiscing about my wedding, I will turn to the point of today’s debate. For me, that starts with the fact that, although this week is the time we celebrate our wedding anniversary each year, it is not in fact my official wedding anniversary, which comes at the end of May, marking the date that we went to an unremarkable registry office in London to do the official bit. We felt somewhat resentful at the time, and still do to this day, because it came with extra costs, extra admin and that niggling sense that the wedding we had invited everyone to a few weeks later was somehow not the real deal. That is why I am so pleased that this debate is happening, and I am so pleased to speak in support of the legal recognition of humanist marriages.
I want humanist couples to be able to marry with a British Humanist Association celebrant of their choosing, and for this to have the same status in law as any other wedding. We have heard from others about how possible this is; I understand that the law can be changed quite quickly and easily by laying down the order under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. No further legislative work is needed. I am so proud that Labour has long supported this. It would strip away legal risks, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and it would be free. It would also be popular, as we have heard. I hope that after today’s debate we can just get on with it.
Legalising humanist marriage would have a transformative impact for humanist couples across the country, stripping away the awkwardness, inconvenience, cost and injustice of needing both an official ceremony and a moment of celebration. It would enable humanists to make their wedding day what it should be: the celebration of their commitment to each other, in line with their beliefs and values, and the legal recognition of that union once and for all.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), as well as the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), on securing the debate. Before I begin in earnest, I am proud to declare my interest as a member of Humanists UK and of the all-party parliamentary humanist group.
I would like to make a proposal to the Minister—one that does not need a ring, flowers or a dramatic moment on bended knee. My simple proposal is that we finally say yes to legalising humanist marriage in England and Wales. I understand the Government’s arguments, and I will focus my remarks on them, but before I get into the detail, I want to say that the fact that this was resolved in Scotland two decades ago, and could be, but has not been, resolved in England and Wales by way of a simple order, is indefensible. It demands urgent action.
I have heard the Government’s argument that they want to consider marriage law in the round, and they should certainly do that, but, thanks to the previous Government, humanist couples have already been waiting for 12 years and that has not happened. Why should they have to continue to wait, and why can they not have legal recognition of their marriages in the meantime?
While humanist couples have been waiting, many other piecemeal reforms have taken place. In 2021, the law was changed to allow civil marriages outdoors. The system of registering marriages became electronic. Mothers’ names have been added to marriage certificates. Opposite-sex civil partnerships have been introduced, along with new possibilities for conversions between marriage and civil partnership. No-fault divorce was introduced in 2022. The marriage age was raised to 18 in 2023. Weddings for whole-life prisoners were banned by this Government just last year.
While all that was taking place, more and more religious groups have been happily registering themselves to do marriages for the first time. Scientologists got the power to conduct marriage in 2014 following a Supreme Court case. The Order of St Leonard, a religious group founded in just 2009, has registered. The Goddess People of Avalon and the He Lives Bible Church, formed in 2000 and 1998, respectively, both registered. In other words, whole religions have come into existence and got the power to conduct marriage in almost the same time that humanist marriages have been under review.
Similarly, more religious groups have decided to perform same-sex marriages, most notably the Methodists in 2021. All the while, humanist celebrants have wanted to be able to perform legal same-sex marriages, but have been denied the right to do so. The previous Government argued that other religious and non-religious belief groups are arguing for legal marriage recognition, so it would be unfair to recognise humanists. However, that argument seems to be that two wrongs make a right. It is not clear who those groups even are. Muslims, for example, can already marry in mosques, and hundreds do so every year. Independent celebrants are an entirely different proposition, as we have heard, being profit-making alternatives to state registrars. It is also not clear how other religious or non-religious belief groups would be disadvantaged by humanists gaining recognition.
In the interest of time, I will wrap up. Scotland has already said, “I do.” Thousands of couples have legally married in beautiful, meaningful humanist ceremonies. England and Wales are still standing at the altar, checking their watch and waiting for the doors to open. I am not asking for sweeping reform. I am not asking the Minister to rethink everything. I am just asking for a simple answer to a simple question: will the Minister, at long last, do me the honour of making that order and recognising humanist marriages? There is no lawful impediment, just the chance to say, finally and unequivocally, “I do.”
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), who secured this debate. It has been worth it for all the puns, if nothing else.
I will use my time to speak about what a positive impact making this change would have, particularly for LGBT couples. In the 2021 census, 37% of people in England and Wales identified as having no religion. Among lesbian, gay and bisexual people, that jumps up to 63%. The numbers for trans people, while a bit less clear due to some issues with the census, are similar. With that in mind, it stands to reason that those LGBT couples would generally prefer to have a non-religious ceremony when they get married.
Indeed, that is what is happening. Humanists UK, whose stats I will be quoting throughout—I also declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group—has found that, following the legislation of same-sex marriage in 2013, humanist celebrants do more same-sex marriages without legal recognition every year than there are legally recognised religious same-sex marriages. That means that many people are opting for these meaningful, inclusive ceremonies even though they do not carry legal weight. That says something very powerful about the demand. Part of that is out of necessity. Humanists UK’s statistics have also shown that less than 1% of places of worship in England and Wales have registered to perform same-sex marriages, so, in practice, a lot of the time, LGBT couples who want to get married and have their union properly recognised are left with very few real options.
That is not to downplay the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which was a big step forward in LGBT rights. To give credit where it is due, that Act was one of very few positives under the previous Conservative Governments, albeit something that got through only because Members from other parties, particularly my own, supported it. That Act, as others have said, included a provision for an order to be laid in future to recognise humanist marriages without the need for further primary legislation, so we could make this change very quickly.
In Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, we committed to strengthening the rights and protections of cohabiting couples. The Minister cited that in response to a recent written question on humanist marriages, which I was pleased to see. I know the Government are currently considering the recommendations from the Law Commission report on weddings and will hopefully confirm the position on that soon. I look forward to that development, as I know humanists have been waiting a long time for legal recognition. I hope we hear more about that today.
There is huge support among various religious groups for this change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth said. More recent polling has shown there are majorities in favour across all religious groups, as well as across voters of all major political parties. Last year, Sandi Toksvig and Stephen Fry were joined by Stonewall, the Terrence Higgins Trust, the LGBT+ Consortium and the LGBT+ groups affiliated to all three major political parties in writing to the Prime Minister about what recognition would do for LGBT couples. This seems to be one of those issues on which pretty much everyone agrees.
Given the overwhelming public support, the ease with which this could be introduced and the impact it would have on LGBT couples in particular, I hope we see recognition of humanist marriages in England and Wales, joining Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that everyone in the UK has the option to have a legally recognised humanist ceremony.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats are proud of our clear and consistent commitment to legal recognition for humanist marriages, which has been official party policy since 2010. It is a position anchored by a strong tenet of our liberalism—the belief that couples should be able to celebrate their marriage in the way they wish. We believe that all types of marriage ceremonies, whether religious, civil or humanist, should be treated equally under the law. It is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. Frankly, it is deeply sad that it has not yet been done in England and Wales.
As has been mentioned, humanist marriages have been legally recognised in Scotland for 20 years, having been introduced in 2005 by the coalition Government that included the Liberal Democrats. Humanist marriages have been legally recognised in Northern Ireland since 2018, in Jersey since 2019, and in Guernsey since 2021. Today, we are reckoning with an alarming discrepancy across the British Isles in a crucial aspect of our legal system.
Do not get me wrong—I am a localist. I believe firmly in devolution of policy, and I recognise that one thing that makes our country so great is the co-existence of strong and diverse legal traditions and systems. But on the question of what really should be a fundamental right for people to marry whoever they love in the manner of their choosing, it is right that we should look to extend and entrench that right as far and as wide as possible.
All of that is to say nothing of the growing recognition of humanist marriages in other countries with similar legal traditions, a shared Commonwealth history and, in countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, a shared Head of State. Indeed, I have intimate knowledge of the latter. When I lived in Toronto, Ontario in 2013, I married my wife in a beautiful ceremony with our choice of officiant, in the snow, in the bandstand of a park near Niagara Falls. A word of warning, though: the temperature plunged to minus 15° during the ceremony and my eyelashes froze shut.
It was not explicitly a humanist wedding, but nor was it a religious or strictly civic wedding either. We had the freedom to choose where and by whom we were married, without the need for a second, separate official ceremony or registration, which humanists are forced to do here in England. We simply had to procure a marriage licence from the city hall and then wait for the marriage certificate to arrive in the post following the ceremony.
This ceremony is recognised as a marriage here in the UK—at least I hope it is—so my personal experience might speak to a further discrepancy in the law by which I, a British national, have what I believe is a legally recognised non-religious and non-civic marriage, while other British nationals in this Chamber are not afforded that same right and freedom of choice were they to be wed in England and Wales.
As several Members have outlined in today’s debate, humanism is a proud tradition with roots stretching back across the centuries. Today, it is alive and well in Britain, with around 5% of the population identifying as humanists, which is more than 3 million people. For the record, I am one of them. The humanist tradition is clearly well established, and the demand for recognising this kind of marriage is clearly significant.
It is not just humanists who want this kind of marriage to be recognised in law: polling published this week by YouGov and Humanists UK shows that 70% of UK adults are in favour, and that this support is widespread and cross-cutting across a wide range of religious groups and political preferences.
Recognising humanist marriage in law is clearly the right thing to do, and it is time for the law to catch up with public sentiment. The public clearly respect and are permissive of a meaningful, non-religious alternative that aligns with the values of many couples, and that recognises that the current situation—in which couples who have a humanist marriage effectively have to duplicate their enjoyment at a later date, usually in a civil ceremony—is unfair. Recognising that unfairness and treating these marriages equally under the law would be a great step forward for millions of people, and it would provide legal clarity for couples.
The moment is ripe for this kind of change. The past decade and a half have seen meaningful revision of our marriage laws, on which the Liberal Democrats are proud to have led the way. The tireless efforts of Liberal Democrat Ministers such as Baroness Featherstone were instrumental in getting the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act passed. I am so grateful for the hard work of people like Lynne and the countless heroes from the LGBT+ community who made this a reality.
It was the Liberal Democrats in government who led the charge to get the ball rolling on recognising humanist marriages, too. Pressure from the Liberal Democrats resulted in the coalition Government proposing what is now section 14 of the Act: the order-making power that could give legal recognition to humanist marriages at any time. Since then we have had more than a decade of missed opportunity, as Government after Government have dragged their feet on responding to a series of Law Commission reviews. In that time, support for humanist marriages has only grown stronger, and the urgent need for change ever clearer.
This Government, who talked a good game in opposition on finally delivering this change using the section 14 power, have dithered in their first year. I ask the Minister to outline the timetable for moving forward on recognising humanist marriages, to explain the Government’s consider-ations in relation to the Law Commission’s review into the matter, and to tell us why they need more time to consider the change when the issue has been under review for 12 years.
I take advantage of this opportunity to personally call for the right to recognise any marriage conducted by a registered officiant for all other groups, as I enjoyed in my marriage, because there is no reason why a humanist should have rights that any other group is denied. Far from leading to “Las Vegas-style free-for-alls”, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) described—somewhat tongue in cheek—I see it as a basic choice in a liberal society. If a couple choose to be married by a man in an Elvis Presley costume, they should have that right.
If the Government wanted, they could start making this change tomorrow. They have inherited a state apparatus that has had that power for more than a decade, as has been clearly expressed today. I hope the Minister agrees about the need to change the law, and I invite her to say to all of us, “I do.”
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, in what has been a heart-warming debate. I thank the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Marriage and civil partnerships play a vital role in fostering stable families and, as a result, more stable communities. Marriage and civil partnerships are more than personal milestones; they are cornerstones of strong, cohesive and enduring relationships—values that my party holds dear. When talking positively about marriage, I always like to point out that my parents were divorced; I do not approach this issue with some idealised view of what marriage represents and can mean, but understanding that an institution is not perfect does not mean that one cannot champion all of its benefits.
I must also declare an interest in that I consider myself to be a humanist, and I am a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group—this seems to be a gathering of humanists in Parliament today.
The exact meaning of what it is to be a humanist will be different for different people, just as the interpretation and meaning of religious faith varies among individuals. To me, it has its greatest value at a community and societal level. We can all individually decide to try to lead what we consider to be moral, values-based lives, but humanism provides us with the opportunity to do so from a shared perspective.
Many humanists celebrate significant milestones—births, marriages and deaths—in ways that reflect their values and worldview. As others have said, a humanist marriage ceremony is often deeply personalised, focusing on the couple’s individuality and commitment, rather than adhering just to religious traditions. Humanist ceremonies are gaining in popularity because they offer an alternative that resonates with those who prefer secular yet still meaningful celebrations.
Approximately 1,200 couples a year choose to have a humanist marriage ceremony, and currently they all have to have a separate legal ceremony. The public, outward-facing nature of a marriage ceremony puts into action the idea that values can be even more powerful when shared and celebrated together as a community.
Previous Conservative Governments understood and recognised the importance of marriage. We delivered the groundbreaking Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which allowed gay and lesbian couples to lawfully marry for the first time. Indeed, that legislation provided for a review and subsequent public consultation on humanist marriages too.
I understand that the majority of respondents to the 2014 consultation were in favour of changing the law. However, the coalition Government, which included the Liberal Democrats, decided that the legal and technical requirements of marriage ceremonies and registration in England and Wales should be considered more generally, alongside making a decision on this issue.
The Law Commission was asked to review the law governing how and where people can marry in England and Wales, and the Law Commission concluded its work in 2022. The final 500-page report on reforming weddings law set out 57 recommendations. One feature of the proposed new scheme is that regulation would be based on the officiant rather than on the building in which a wedding takes place. The report also set out a scheme by which anybody could be authorised to conduct civil marriages.
I have some concerns about the Law Commission’s proposals. I understand that the recommendations go beyond giving humanist wedding ceremonies legal status, and they would create a free-market, celebrant-based approach to the wedding industry. I disagree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that marriage is an entirely individual choice. We have talked about how its value sits within society; and if society does not regulate and choose how that operates, marriage loses its wider shared meaning. Alongside humanists, others have expressed that such a move could undermine the solemn nature of marriage.
I understand that the current Government have also taken the view that wholesale reform is preferable. But every year that passes rightly creates further pressure, as the balance tips closer to those arguing that having specific measures to support humanist marriage ceremonies is the fairer approach. Let us not forget that Scotland and Northern Ireland already legally recognise humanist marriages.
During the pandemic, the previous Conservative Government took steps to adapt our marriage laws to accommodate the social distancing regulations in place at the time. In June 2021, they recognised the need for flexibility during a challenging time for individuals wishing to marry and for wedding venues, by extending legal recognition to outdoor civil marriages on an interim basis. The measure allowed ceremonies to take place outdoors on approved premises, addressing the unique challenges posed by the pandemic.
Following a consultation, that temporary reform was made permanent in April 2022, ensuring that couples could continue to celebrate their union in a safe and meaningful manner. The reform demonstrates the ongoing Conservative commitment to marriage and proves that specific adaptations to our legal framework to meet the needs of the moment are eminently possible.
On a personal level, and as a member of the APPG, I share the frustration with the continued delay to marriage reform and, as a result, the recognition of humanist marriages. I also note the YouGov poll, conveniently published earlier this week, showing strong public support for recognising humanist marriages, with 70% in favour and only 15% opposed. The support is consistent across religious and belief groups of different kinds.
Notwithstanding the concerns I have outlined, the Opposition are positively predisposed to the introduction of humanist marriage ceremonies. While we would need to consider any proposals in detail, we hope to be able to welcome any reform package brought forward. We are increasingly sympathetic to the need for specific measures to allow humanist marriages to take place, given the ongoing delays. A number of Conservative Members who support these measures wished to attend this debate, but as is often the case, timetables can be challenging.
I hope the Minister can outline a timetable, and if she cannot, can instead explain what consideration the Government are giving to targeted reform. What do they see as the obstacles to this approach? As other Members have mentioned, the manner in which the marriage ceremonies of Quakers and Jewish groups are legally recognised provides a template for the Government.
At the heart of this discussion lies a fundamental truth: marriage and civil partnerships are institutions that promote stability, responsibility and community cohesion. These are values that I, as a Conservative, champion unequivocally. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans for bringing them to the fore for the humanists in our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for securing this important—and, may I say, really lovely —debate.
I should stress that the strength of feeling and frustration around legally recognising humanist weddings is very clear to me from this debate. It is important for me to acknowledge at the outset that the Government fully understand and recognise the significance of the issue to hon. Members and to humanists more widely. I am aware that a number of hon. Member from both Houses are campaigning on the issue, including those Members who secured the debate. I thank all hon. Members for taking part and expressing their deeply personal experiences and views. It has really contributed to this positive debate.
Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, has been at the forefront of this campaign. He has met officials from my Department on a number of occasions, and it has been very helpful to understand his views on the issue as we take forward any potential reform. It is also only right that I acknowledge the frustrations that humanists have felt while campaigning for a change to the law. I appreciate that this change has been ongoing on for a long time. For many humanists, the inclusion of the order-making power within the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was hard fought for, and I know that it has been disappointing to them that this power has not been used to date.
I also do not think it would be right to have this debate without recognising the important contribution that humanists make to society. Humanists have often been at the forefront of the fight for social justice, campaigning for fairness, respect and equality for all. I join in celebrating the celebrants mentioned today for all the work they do to conduct weddings, funerals and important life events. The Government hugely acknowledge the tireless work of humanists, whether that is campaigning to abolish blasphemy laws, or Humanists UK raising the profile of illegal independent schools within Government.
I know that my noble Friend Lord Khan was very pleased to attend the World Humanists Day reception last year as the Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he spoke in 2021 to mark Humanists UK’s 125th anniversary, saying:
“Ever since its foundation as an ethical movement, humanists have contributed enormously to our party’s and our nation’s achievements…Humanists and Humanists UK have been at the forefront of the fight for social change: to decriminalise homosexuality, to end corporal punishment in schools, and to introduce free school meals.”
I could not have put it better myself. That quote captures the profound and lasting impact of Humanists UK.
We are having this debate because marriage is one of our most important institutions. At its best, it is a celebration of love, a symbol of enduring partnership and a deeply personal commitment. Marriage can provide many benefits, including emotional support, financial stability and legal protections. For those who choose to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision—one that this Government are proud to promote and protect. Although the state rightly has a responsibility to ensure that marriage laws provide clarity and certainty around the legal status of marriage, we believe the conversation can and should go further. Our weddings law should always reflect the importance and meaning of marriage as an institution.
It is important to acknowledge the shape of our current law around weddings and explain how we have got to where we are, so let me begin by reflecting on the history of marriage law in England and Wales—unlike some wedding speeches, I promise to keep it brief and free of groan-inducing jokes.
Our weddings law has evolved gradually over centuries, with its core structure rooted in the 18th and 19th centuries. The foundations of weddings law were laid by the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753. The Act was designed to prevent secret or hasty marriages by requiring weddings to be undertaken by Anglican clergy in a parish church or public chapel. While the Act permitted Anglican weddings only, it explicitly exempted Jewish and Quaker marriage ceremonies. The Marriage Act 1836 marked a significant turning point, introducing civil marriage for the first time and allowing weddings to take place in registry offices and non-Anglican places of worship. It also brought in civil preliminaries, acknowledging the state’s interest in there being legal certainty about who is married.
The fundamental structure established in 1836 remains largely in place today, consolidated within the Marriage Act 1949. The model on which our law is based is broadly a buildings-based model, which means that most marriages are regulated according to the building in which they take place. There are exceptions to the system, because Jews and Quakers are not bound by this restriction and may marry in any location.
There is discrepancy in the law, because couples must choose between a civil or a religious wedding. If they opt for a religious wedding, the rules that apply will vary depending which religion the ceremony is conducted according to. Civil weddings, by contrast, must be held at a register office or at premises that have been officially approved for that purpose. Therefore, it is for historical reasons that humanists are currently unable to conduct legally binding weddings. There is no provision in our legislative framework for non-religious belief ceremonies to be legally binding, as a wedding must either be religious or civil.
As others have said, the Law Commission published a report in 2022 reviewing weddings law and concluded that it is
“inconsistent and complicated, inefficient, unfair, and needlessly restrictive”.
It found that the law does not work for couples of many different religions and beliefs, including humanists. The report was the result of extensive research and stakeholder engagement; the Law Commission received more than 1,500 responses to its consultation and engaging with more than 50 key stakeholders. It provided a number of instances where the law does not work for many couples, and one prominent example is that humanist couples are unable to have legally recognised humanist weddings in England and Wales.
The Law Commission also highlighted discrepancies affecting different religious groups. For instance, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus are required to marry in a registered place of worship, regardless of whether that place of worship is meaningful in a marriage context, and must use a prescribed form of words. In contrast, Jew and Quaker couples are permitted to marry in any location and without any prescribed wording. Another example identified was the challenges faced by mixed-faith couples, who are currently unable to have ceremonies that might reflect two different faiths.
To address the wide range of problems identified with the current law, the Law Commission made 57 recommendations for reform, underpinned by the proposal that current weddings law should be overhauled and a new legislative framework should be put in place. The Law Commission proposed a new framework to ensure that all groups are treated with fairness and consistency on how they get married.
I am keenly aware that humanists have expressed the view that the Law Commission’s recommendations do not provide the solution they are seeking. One of the main reasons for that is their preference for the Government to act quickly and use the order-making power, as several hon. Members have mentioned, which would allow for humanist weddings to take place within the current legislative framework.
Andrew Cooper
I understand the Minister’s point, but that does not accurately characterise my position. I am very happy for the Government to do a broader set of reforms, but I and others are arguing that we do not necessarily need to wait for that before acting on humanist marriage. The two things could happen in parallel. Would the Minister agree with that?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important to ensure we do this properly. I am against any piecemeal reform here. If we are to do this, we need to do it properly and together, so that it is succinct. There are ways that that can be done, as I am about to come on to.
I acknowledge the calls made during this debate for the Government to take that step, and to take it quickly, and I will address them directly. Although it is true that using the order-making power would allow non-religious belief organisations to marry within the current framework of weddings law, it is important for us to take into account what the Law Commission has said about doing that. The Law Commission highlighted the complexities of the law in this area and concluded that exercising the order-making power is not, in its view, a viable option. As a responsible Government, we must take that view into account when considering the issue of weddings reform.
Cat Eccles
Does the Minister agree that those measures already exist for Quakers? Humanists are not asking for a huge change in the law.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree, and I recognise that point, which I have addressed in terms of Jews and Quakers; this is about equality before the law, but we need to recognise the concerns raised by the Law Commission about what making that change on its own could entail. We need to look at this in the round, which is exactly what the Government are doing.
I know that the hon. Members who secured this debate will be disappointed when I say that it would not be responsible for the Government to ignore the Law Commission’s report, but we cannot ignore the fact that the report identified a number of complex and significant recommendations. It is absolutely essential that those are considered carefully and in full, and that is exactly what we are doing. I stress that that does not mean the issue of humanist marriage is being overlooked. On the contrary, the Government are actively considering the matter of humanist weddings as part of their broader review of the Law Commission’s report.
As I have said, we are considering the issues very carefully. Although I know hon. Members will be disappointed that the Government have not yet made commitments in relation to the issue, I hope the debate today has at least provided some assurance that the Government understands and hear the strength of feeling on the issues, including the key importance not just of weddings, but of marriage itself, and that we are looking into them with the utmost care and attention. I hope that assures hon. Members that I very much sympathise with humanists’ wish for legally binding weddings. I am happy to confirm—and say “I do”—that my officials are working on this at pace, and that an update on the Government’s position on weddings law reform will come soon. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, we may not yet be able to set the date, but we can certainly start planning.
Sarah Edwards
I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions to this ceremonious debate, the personal stories shared and the tone of the debate. We have witnessed a marriage today between my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), which was a treat for all of us. We have had an incredibly important debate, but we have been waiting. I acknowledge the Minister’s comments, but more than a decade has passed since Parliament gave the Government power to make this change—a change backed by public support, clear legal authority and a strong moral case. The Labour Government have the chance to act and bring an end to this unnecessary injustice.
It is slightly disappointing not to hear more clarity on the timeframe. We are asking for equal treatment, fairness and recognition, and it is a straightforward and uncontroversial step to give legal status to humanist marriages. I say to the Minister: let us not wait any longer. The engagement has been long enough. The guests are ready, the vows have been written and the case is clear for finally delivering the legal recognition that humanist couples have waited so long to see. Will she pronounce our humanist marriages lawfully wedded?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the recognition of humanist marriages.
Long-term Medical Conditions
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
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Long-term conditions need a long-term plan. We were promised one of those, and it cannot come soon enough. The Chancellor’s statement yesterday, which committed to a 3% real-terms rise in NHS funding each year, gives me enormous hope for the future of our health service. Some 70% of that funding will likely go to the treatment of long-term conditions, so it is incredibly important that we consider how we should treat them.
Most of us at some point will collect a few long-term conditions. Some of us are born with them; sometimes, they are serious disabilities. I am sure that we will hear some stories of those challenges. I reached out to the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and heard many stories about their experiences of using our NHS. All too often, it is the same story: it is those with long-term conditions, not deadly diseases, who feel most let down now. The reality for many is that by the time they reach my age, they are fortunate if they have never had to visit a clinic or see a nurse about something that is no longer working quite as well as it should. The wheels begin to fall off all of us eventually.
Living with a long-term condition has a profound impact on people. It can mean lost work days, missed opportunities and, for many, being pushed out of the workforce altogether. When people are unable to work because of poor health, they are cut off from society and their quality of life obviously declines. That also has a terrible effect on the economy. It is estimated that successfully addressing the crisis in long-term sickness would increase GDP by between £109 billion and £177 billion over the next five years, generating billions of pounds of additional tax revenue. This is a growing trend and as the population gets older it will simply become more pressing. I worry that we have not truly adapted our medical system to deal with this reality.
When I was a medical student, a heart attack was managed with morphine and bed rest. Things have certainly changed, and yet the NHS has not changed enough. In 1948, it was created to deal with infectious diseases and acute hospital care, but the health needs of the population have changed completely. People now live long lives with conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and arthritis. We need to focus on keeping those people in the community rather than waiting until they become so unwell that they have to be brought to hospitals.
The NHS should not just be a sickness service; it should help people to manage their conditions and live much better lives. During our debate on dementia a few days ago, I heard many moving stories about families challenged by that devastating illness. Dementia fills so many hospital beds, and the cost to society is quite staggering, but the real message of the debate was about the need for better community care and greater investment in technology and research. That is true for dementia, but it is also true for many long-term conditions. We have the time and the ideas; now, we must use them.
There is much talk about moving care from hospitals to the community, which is not a slogan but an absolute necessity. I have seen it work in practice: before I came here, I was involved in a project that moved care for people with hearing loss out of hospitals and into the community. Patients benefited from easier and quicker access to specialist NHS audiology and nursing services. We now need to see such an approach rolled out across the country.
The neighbourhood practice model advocated by my Suffolk GP colleagues must be part of the answer, with community health hubs open into the evening, resourced with nurses and mental health services and incorporating a pharmacy, with a GP who is known to the patient and to the family. Those hubs would be the place to call when sick—a better option than calling 111 or having a long wait in A&E. They would offer access to multi-disciplinary teams all in one place, a bit like the geriatric day hospitals that my dad, Professor Derek Prinsley, a pioneer of geriatric medicine, introduced into his practice in Teesside in the 1960s.
The NHS must be a neighbourhood health service, not just a national health service. That is how we join up care so that patients no longer feel like they are being pushed from pillar to post. Instead of being rushed between different appointments in hospital corridors, people should be cared for in one place, bringing lifesaving continuity of care. It is time to end the fragmented system of the past, where people ended up in A&E simply because there was nowhere else to go, and where we had older people lying in trolleys in the early hours for long-term conditions that could have been managed in primary care. A&E should be for real accidents and emergencies. That is how we must start thinking about the long-term care of long-term conditions.
At the centre of our thoughts must be the patient. Health services are all too often designed to deal with patients with a single disease, but for a growing number, that is no longer a suitable model. If I have high blood pressure and asthma, I have to visit the practice three times: once for the blood pressure check and once for the asthma check, and then another appointment to see the GP. I think we can do better than that.
How can we truly put the patient at the centre of healthcare? As I have said before, one answer is to embrace the digital transition and change the medical record paradigm. Let the patient have the record. Give them agency over their healthcare. If people knew a bit more about their health, they might care for it a bit better. More than one in five patients with a long-term condition has said they do not have enough information to manage their condition. That is 5.5 million people across the country who are not confident that they can manage their condition, so let us have the doctor ask the patient for the record, not the other way round. That would be a revolutionary change.
I would like to talk about medical research. Of course, our country has an incredible record of medical research: Jenner, who devised vaccination; Lister, who invented antisepsis; and Fleming, who discovered penicillin—British doctors who saved unimaginable numbers of lives. Then there is Dr John Snow, who removed the handle from the water pump in Broad Street, near to where we are sitting today, ending the cholera epidemic and founding the field of public health. It is on scientific advances like those that we mostly depend as we fight many long-term conditions. We will hear of artificial pancreas pumps to treat diabetes and genetic treatments to cure sickle cell disease and arthritis, but let us not take that progress for granted. We should support medical innovation and put the best technology into the hands of our doctors.
I am proud that the Government are boosting investment in diagnostic machines in hospitals across the country, because I have been told by constituents about the struggle of misdiagnosis—months and years spent unsure what is wrong with them, with doctors unable to shed any light. We are rolling out artificial intelligence and improving diagnostics across the country, and the Government have promised to support that further.
Improving researchers’ access to medical data will be part of the approach. Let us imagine the scientific advances we could make if researchers could conduct studies on sample sizes of 67 million people. Scientific and medical advances depend on our brilliant young people, who must be funded and supported as they embark on research careers. The number of clinical academics is in decline, which is a particular worry of mine. We should challenge that and reverse it. The NHS is easily the biggest employer in our country—perhaps one of the biggest employers in the whole world—but what are we doing to ensure that its people can best support us?
A failure to tackle long-term conditions is significantly impacting the NHS’s own workforce. Musculoskeletal conditions, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis are leading causes of absenteeism among NHS staff, with ambulance and clinical support staff particularly affected, but we also hear many examples of terrible workforce planning. We learn of nurses and midwives graduating from colleges carrying large debts, after working for thousands of hours on placements for free, only to find a recruitment freeze in the very hospitals that desperately need their skills. Instead, hospitals are spending huge sums on agency staff. This is not a long-term plan; this is short-term thinking of the very worst kind.
I am glad that agency spending fell last year. We must make sure that we spend wisely on newly qualified nurses and midwives, which will end up saving the NHS enormous sums. We also ought to do something about their student debt. Why not write it off if they commit to working for five years in our NHS, giving them security? Our health service needs their expertise.
What about the young doctors, of whom I have spoken before? We need enough GPs, nurses and clinicians to help people to get well, but every year, thousands of UK doctors qualify with debts of up to £100,000. Many are then sent far from home, family and friends just as they begin their careers, and after two years they face intense competition for higher training against thousands of international doctors who fill up our hospital rotas and keep our services running. Some young doctors find themselves repeating their foundation years or going overseas, and others leave medicine altogether. This is certainly not a long-term plan.
We must do better. I have seen for myself that our hospitals can run better with the resources they already have. At my West Suffolk hospital I saw the results: corridor care has been abolished and long-term waits in A&E are now a thing of the past. That has been done by taking a whole-hospital approach to improve the patient experience and ensure that the appropriate health professional is dealing with the patient at the earliest opportunity. That does not cost more, the staff are happier and the service is massively better. That is what happens when we put people first, work together across the disciplines and take real responsibility for change.
Mr Blair once spoke of dealing with crime and the causes of crime; today I speak of dealing with diseases and the causes of diseases. Poverty, poor nutrition and poor housing are at the heart of so much of our country’s ill health. Those are not just background factors; they are the root cause of suffering and long-term conditions. If we are truly committed to a healthier society, those are the challenges we must address.
The mission of our party and our Government is to lift millions out of poverty, tackle deep inequality and shape people’s health from cradle to grave. We will not accept the shocking housing conditions endured by so many of our fellow citizens. These are not simply political and economic problems; they are the underlying causes of much disease and misery, and many avoidable deaths.
There is much for us to do, but I am convinced there is much that we can do to create easier access to NHS services, improve primary care and support those who want to conduct groundbreaking medical research. I hope the Government will look to tackle our long-term conditions crisis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they must bob if they want to take part in the debate.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for his learned and absolutely excellent speech. I will focus on my profession as an NHS optometrist and discuss the impact of sight loss from long-term conditions.
Let us imagine a young mother-to-be sitting in my consulting room glowing with excitement, whose joy turns to fear as I gently explain to her that her sight is deteriorating—all of a sudden it becomes a race against time; she may never be able to see her baby clearly. Or let us imagine the teenage boy with dreams of a rugby career who leaves my room with the life-changing knowledge that he is losing his vision. Unfortunately, those are not extraordinary cases; they are everyday tragedies in my workplace.
These long-term conditions are often framed in terms of physical health, but as someone working with patients losing their sight, I see—as the hon. Member already eloquently articulated—the more profound, layered consequences everyday: the emotional trauma, isolation and loss of independence, and the inevitability of declining mental health, which I want to concentrate on.
For example, macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in the UK. It does not just take away people’s central vision; it also affects their ability to read, recognise faces and drive. That means grandparents may never be able to see the faces of their grandchildren; tears are a natural result of such a devastating awareness. There is also a condition called glaucoma—generally diagnosed later in life—known as a thief of sight, because it creeps up on someone silently, often unnoticed, until irreversible damage has been done. It steals more than vision; it robs people of confidence, safety and the ability to live independently. For many, the diagnosis comes too late, and with it comes a slow loss of identity.
Sight loss is not just a health issue but a social one, and its impact is profound. More than 4 million people in England with a long-term physical health condition also live with mental health problems. Those individuals experience significantly poorer outcomes and shorter life expectancies, and economically the toll is massive: between £8 billion and £13 billion a year, or at least £1 in every £8 spent on long-term conditions, is linked directly to poor mental health and wellbeing.
One extremely overlooked condition—I suspect many people have not heard of it—is a consequence of vision loss called Charles Bonnet syndrome, which causes people to see vivid hallucinations as the brain attempts to fill in the gaps left by the reduced sight. The images can be repetitive patterns, but more often and distressingly they can be realistic visions of people, sometimes long deceased, or landscapes.
Let us imagine that a person who is elderly, fragile and possibly alone is diagnosed with sight loss, and all they can see is their long-lost childhood pet—it is beyond frightening. It is not a mental disorder, yet many patients suffer in silence, afraid to talk about the hallucinations for fear of being misunderstood and misdiagnosed. Research suggests that at least one in five adults with sight loss will experience Charles Bonnet syndrome—more than 1 million people in the UK—but the figure is probably even higher. Children are affected too, but we are only beginning to understand their experiences.
People living with long-term conditions such as macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy face a constant battle not just with their illness, but with a system that is not designed to meet the complex, long-term nature of their needs. We need a change in the Government’s upcoming 10-year healthcare plan, and I have some suggestions for that. We should recognise sight loss and associated conditions such as Charles Bonnet syndrome as part of the national long-term conditions framework.
We need routine mental health screening and support for people with chronic vision impairment—in fact, for all long-term conditions. We need training for all healthcare professionals, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, in integrated work, so that optometrists, GPs and nurses identify patients and support them with the psychological impact of the illness. NHS funding models and care pathways should be redesigned to reward integrated care and cross-speciality collaboration, especially where physical and mental health intersect. We need investment in early detection and care pathways.
Long-term conditions shorten lives not only through the body but through the burden they place on the mind. If we do not act, we will be complicit in that erosion. But if we do act—if we integrate care, listen to patients, fund innovations and remove stigma—we can change what it means to live with long-term conditions in this country. Let us ensure that people living with long-term health conditions, whether heart failure, arthritis, diabetes or sight loss, are not left to fall through the cracks. Sight is not a luxury, independence is not optional and suffering in silence must never be acceptable.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this extremely important debate. He speaks from a position of great experience. He rightly points to a holistic approach, putting the patient at the centre of their treatment.
By 2035, two thirds of the UK population aged over 65 are expected to be living with two or more long-term conditions, whether chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson’s, diabetes or epilepsy. Living with an LTC can significantly reduce a person’s quality of life.
I rise to speak on behalf of those living with a condition that affects approximately 1.5 million women in the UK: endometriosis. This chronic condition, whereby tissue similar to the lining of the womb grows outside the uterus, causes debilitating pain, fatigue and often infertility, yet despite its prevalence it remains under-recognised and undertreated, like so many conditions that affect women. The average time to diagnose in the UK is more than eight years. Many women visit their GPs multiple times before receiving a referral, and some are forced to turn to private healthcare due to the lengthy NHS waiting times. That delay not only exacerbates the condition’s physical symptoms but impacts mental health and quality of life.
Endometriosis is not merely a health issue for women; it is a public health issue that costs the UK economy. Over half of those affected have taken time off work due to endometriosis, and many fear job loss or reduced income.
My constituent, Angela Tiernan, has thoracic endo-metriosis, a rare form of the condition where tissue similar to the uterine lining grows in the chest cavity, commonly affecting the diaphragm and lungs. Angela recently found out that planned surgery to confirm her diagnosis and reformulate a treatment plan would no longer be going ahead as the specialist Oxford University Hospitals has stopped commissioning the surgery, as have other specialist centres in London and Bristol. Angela has told me that patients are being advised to go private to access required treatments and surgeries that were previously available through the NHS, but have since been cancelled by the hospital. My constituent Angela and other women are now left in a position with no diagnosis and no access to investigation, care or treatment unless they can afford to go private.
Endometriosis is a long-term condition that requires a long-term solution. I ask the Minister for reassurance that endometriosis is addressed in our 10-year-plan.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is a delight to speak under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate.
Many of those living with long-term conditions are people who live happy and enriched lives. They are supported not only by wonders in medical advancements, but by the communities of people—friends, family or incredible NHS and care staff—who support them week in, week out, day in, day out. But for some, the consequences when those support networks fail can be catastrophic. I would like to use this opportunity to raise awareness of the plight of my constituent, Andy.
Andy has been living with a benign brain tumour and functional neurological disorder for nearly a decade. In that time he has been treated in various medical settings. By 2022, he had been transferred from the care of London hospitals to medical facilities closer to home in my constituency of Eastbourne. Following an initial appointment there in April 2022, he was told that there would be a follow-up six months later. Outrageously, due to human error, the follow-up was not held until November 2024, a staggering two and a half years after his initial appointment. I hear of cases like that again and again, disproportionately from patients experiencing long-term health conditions. It seems there is no parity of esteem between people suffering from these kinds of conditions and people suffering from shorter-term, more emergency-based conditions.
If that was not bad enough, Andy was subsequently informed that the services and expertise needed to treat his condition, which he had been referred to Eastbourne for, were not available locally, so one has to ask why that transfer happened in the first place. But the wider question, which goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, is why towns like Eastbourne are denied such important services locally. It cannot be right that people living with long-term conditions sometimes have to travel dozens or in some cases hundreds of miles to access the care that they deserve and rightly expect.
We have seen in the likes of my town and across the country, following years of underfunding by the last Government, centres like the Eastbourne district general hospital losing core services to other towns and cities nearby, forcing residents to trek even further to get the treatment they need. The life of my constituent, Andy, has been hugely impacted by this woeful state of affairs—a broken system and broken administration within it. Both his personal and professional lives have been significantly compromised. He can, of course, take his case to the ombudsman, which he plans to do, but that process can take months if not years to conclude, and he needs answers now.
I ask the Government: what steps are being taken to address and rectify the issues, not only with the funding but with the administration of our NHS, caused by some of these things that create such grief and hardship for residents like Andy? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that local hospitals like mine are equipped to treat a broad range of long-term conditions? Most importantly, for Andy, can I get a categoric reassurance from the Government that his case will be looked into and resolved as a matter of urgency, so that neither he nor anyone else in his position has to experience this gross injustice on top of the hardship of living with a long-term condition?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this debate. This is also an appropriate time to acknowledge his more than four decades of service as a surgeon in the NHS.
I want to use my time to talk about strokes, because I, like millions of people across the country, have a personal account of dealing with this life-altering medical condition. At 11 am on 13 August 2013, I received a message from a relative saying, “I think your dad has been in a crash. The car is all smashed up and the doors are wide open outside the house.” I was at work in Cambridge that morning, and my parents’ house was back in Norfolk. Not being able to reach my dad, I managed to get a message to my sister to go round. She found my dad in bed.
Unbeknown to any of us, including my dad, he had been having a stroke all morning. Getting ready for work, he struggled to put on his coat. He forgot to pick up his car keys and initially left the house without locking the door. My mother did not think too much of it. He then somehow managed to drive her to work and drove himself to his engineering factory just a bit further down the road. When he got to work, they sent him home. They thought he was drunk.
On the way home, my dad crashed into a parked lorry. Dazed and confused, and in the midst of his stroke, he drove home and took himself to bed, thinking he had a cold. If he had not left the car abandoned outside the house, and if that relative had not raised the alarm, he would have been in bed for the rest of the day alone and he likely would not have survived. As it turned out, we were able to get him to hospital and we managed to have a further 10 years with him. My dad was 55 when he had his stroke. He was fit and healthy. He worked full time. He showed no warning signs, and then—wham. He had a full-on, major stroke from nowhere.
As a family, we did not know much about strokes at all. I had no idea that they came in all shapes and sizes, with varying levels of severity. The recovery, too, is variable. Strokes directly affect 100,000 people each and every year. Approximately one in four men and one in five women aged 45 can expect to have a stroke if they live to 85. Stroke is the fourth leading cause of death in the UK, and a leading cause of disability. Tragically, nine out of 10 strokes are preventable through early detection and management of conditions such as high blood pressure.
Last month was Stroke Awareness Month, which is an important opportunity to highlight how to spot a stroke. I urge Members to look at F-A-S-T—face, arms, speech, time—the method to recognise symptoms. Is the face drooping? Does one side of the face feel numb? Is the arm weak? Can the person raise both arms? Is speech difficult? Ask the person to repeat a simple phrase. Check to see whether speech is slurred or strange. If these symptoms are observed, it is time to call 999—F-A-S-T. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a 25% reduction in deaths from cardiovascular disease and stroke by 2035, but without urgent action on stroke, that goal will not be met. A plan is needed to tackle three key factors: early detection, treatment and prevention.
There are almost 3,000 stroke survivors in my South West Norfolk constituency alone, and they are all working to rebuild their lives. The prevalence of stroke in my constituency is 473; given that one is the lowest prevalence and 543 is the highest, it is clearly a significant problem in my community. While I have the opportunity to do so, I also want to note the Stroke Association’s incredible work to support stroke survivors across the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing the debate and, like the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), I thank him for his service. I did not know he was a surgeon —I thought he was a GP—but whatever it was, I thank him. We are all indebted to him for his contribution.
It is great to speak in this debate as the Democratic Unionist party health spokesperson, and as an MP who has many constituents suffering from long-term health conditions. I frequently meet them to discuss the issues they face and, more often than not, the issue is benefits and help to fill in their benefit forms—I have a staff member who does nothing else but that. We are, then, face to face with those with complex and chronic long-term conditions. It is important to come here and make the case for them.
I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. Believe it or not, this thin young man—he is not young no more, by the way—used to be 17 stone. He is now down to just over 13 stone. Whenever I was told I was diabetic, the doctor was very clear that I really had to do something. A sweet trolley was going by the table—I remember that well; it has stuck in my mind all these years—and he phoned up to tell me. I went to see him because I thought there was something wrong, and there was something wrong, but thank goodness it was not what I thought it was at the time. He said, “You’re diabetic. The one good thing is that you’ve got a heart like an ox.” That was perhaps the one good thing out of it all.
I lost weight and was able to control my diabetes for four years or thereabouts, but then it got worse. I am now surviving with nine tablets in the morning and five at night. That keeps the condition subtle and manageable. This is not about me, but I wanted to tell that story because many people who are diabetic do not know they are. We always talk about early diagnosis, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and others will know.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes and I want to emphasise the point about early detection. A family recently got in touch with me who tragically lost their daughter because she had not been identified as a type 1 diabetic and ended up in diabetic ketoacidosis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to do more to identify people and screen them for chronic, lifelong conditions?
Jim Shannon
If I could ask for one thing in this debate, it would be that—it is important.
I should have welcomed the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen) to her position; apologies for not doing that at the beginning of my speech. It is a real joy to see her there. It is better than whipping, I am sure she knows. This is two debates in two days running in which we have had Parliamentary Private Secretaries and, in this case, a Whip in the place of Ministers. I wish her well in her role today.
Many of the people I meet every day have diabetes, dementia, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, osteoporosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. COPD has been more prevalent this last while than it has been in the past. It is an accumulative disease, of course—it comes at the end of a person’s life, unfortunately —and it catches up with people, in many cases. It is not just about the long-term physical conditions; it is the depression, the anxiety and the mental health effects, as well as the pressure of life. The physical pressures are part of it, but the mental pressures come off the back that. Many of the people I speak to have complex needs, and might have one, two or perhaps three of those conditions, which adds to the issue.
Ahead of the debate I met representatives from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and spoke to them about the effect of cystic fibrosis on people. This week, I celebrate the people, like the trust, who have responded to cystic fibrosis by trying to find a cure. CF is a chronic, life-limiting genetic condition without a cure. It affects more than 11,000 people across the UK, with approximately 500 of those diagnosed back in Northern Ireland. I meet some of them regularly in my constituency. For those living with the condition, medication and general health must be considered when planning the simplest of projects or activities—even getting out of bed, for goodness’ sake, or going down the stairs or making breakfast. Going shopping is a no-no for most of them, and interaction with family is another issue. Being unwell can interfere with work and education every day. Research has highlighted the intense financial costs of the condition, which causes an average loss in income of nearly £6,800 a year.
This is not a direct attack on the Minister, but I have to make a point about the potential changes to the guidance on welfare and personal independent payments. I have raised before how the changes will impact people with certain health conditions who are on benefits such as PIP. I know that the Government are trying to get people who want to work back into work. Some people with these conditions cannot work, of course, but for people with other conditions there are days that they feel good, and days that they do not. They cannot regulate themselves and say, “I’m going to work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week,” because the fact is that they do not know how they will feel next week. They may not be able to get out of bed. The Government need to look at flexibility in the PIP process. That probably means that a person cannot do every job that they would like to do, and is restricted. It might be that they have to do some of their work from home. When they look at changes, the Government need to consider that.
The Government must commit—this is my absolute red line in the sand—to scrap the four-point rule for personal independence payments, which disproportionately harms people with conditions such as Parkinson’s and CF by failing to account for conditions that tend to fluctuate. That is the very issue I am trying to put forward. As I said, the cost of some of these conditions is financially challenging for many. Aside from the loss of PIP payments, it is also important that a safety net is provided by increasing the age of transition for young people who are currently eligible for disability living allowance but transferring to PIP. These are not issues that the acting Minister will understand, or respond to positively, in a focused way, but it is important to feed these issues into the process so that when Labour comes up with a way forward, it understands the issues.
I wish to speak briefly about the Government’s national cancer plan, which is extremely important for people living with cancer and the care they receive. The plan states that more care will be shifted from hospitals to local communities. Earlier today, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked the Minister for Secondary Care a question on the health and social care statement, and expressed disappointment at not hearing anything about cancer in the statement. The Government need to focus on cancer, including the early diagnosis of the disease and how quickly the process can move forward to ensure that people get treatment.
Back home in Northern Ireland, general practitioners are referring people for cancer treatment, and only 35% of those people have been seen. What a disappointment. That is not the Minister’s fault—it is a devolved matter, so it is the responsibility of the Minister back home—but if 65% of people who are diagnosed with cancer are not getting treatment, my goodness me! That comes to the point that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) made about his constituent who had to wait two and a half years—how long are people waiting to get treated? Sometimes the delay in treatment means that the person does not survive and passes away. What a tragedy that they did not get the response they needed at the time that they needed it. We need to be ever mindful that the care of people who require long-term cancer care is tailored to them and structured in a way that suits them and makes them as comfortable as possible.
It is wonderful how the NHS has advanced, and how the cures for cancer have advanced. Although 50% of the people in this room will get cancer, 70% of us will hopefully survive. Is it not marvellous how the NHS has progressed and how the research into finding the cure for diseases has marched on?
One in two people with a serious disability or other long-term condition, such as diabetes or heart disease, say that it is now harder than ever to get a diagnosis, and some people may have the complex issues I referred to earlier as well as cancer. Too many opportunities to support people are being missed. I look to the Minister for a response, and for her to say that the Government will do what they can, through the legislature, to provide support for people with long-term health conditions.
So many people across this nation are suffering and we must do more to ensure that their lives are made as easy as possible. I look to the Minister for a very positive answer. I hope that I have not given her a difficult time; that was not my intention. I try to do things in a respectful way, and hope my questions have not been too hard to answer. They are straight from the heart, and from the heart of us all, because we are here to work on behalf of our constituents. The stories that I bring to this Chamber are those of my constituents, and the hon. Member for Eastbourne brings the stories of his constituents. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) told us three or four different stories about vision, which is not something we hear about often, but those are the true, everyday experiences of his constituents. We need something in response to that.
When it comes to the answers, perhaps we could have a better working relationship with the devolved Administrations. I am ever mindful that health is devolved in all three of them, but there could be concerted plans. Whenever I first came to this place, we had a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland diabetes plan that was agreed by this Parliament and by all the regions and all the Administrations. Sometimes, we need to do things collectively. I always put forward the advantages, and this great nation—this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is great because of all the people who make up the component parts: the Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and, of course, the English.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I was a bit anxious, because I do not think I have ever followed the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) before, and people are normally leaving as he sits down. But there we are.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on securing such an important debate. He clearly demonstrated why he was the best person to bring this issue forward, given his years of experience.
I declare an interest: I was a physiotherapist for 32 years. I was also used to dealing with long-term neurological conditions such as stroke, MS and Parkinson’s, and respiratory conditions such as asthma and COPD. They are all really important. Of course, I also dealt with long-term musculoskeletal conditions such as arthritis.
For the sake of balance, I should say that my daughter is a resident doctor. I had to mention her, otherwise she would tell me off. As people can imagine, we have a very balanced debate about whether a doctor does better than a physiotherapist. We have a lot of interesting debate about that.
I must thank Versus Arthritis, representatives of which I met earlier this week to talk about various conditions and the economic impact of arthritis. They reminded me about this debate. I was late asking to speak because it had completely passed me by.
It is really important that we acknowledge the fact that, as other hon. Members have said, there are many people in this country living with long-term conditions and living very successful lives. We must make sure that we enable them to carry on in that way.
Arthritis impacts over 20 million people in this country, which is a lot of people. Whether it is osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, nearly one in six of us is living with arthritis. Arthritis affects all ages, not just the elderly, as we tend to assume, and effects children, too. Juvenile chronic arthritis is well known, and at least 10,000 children are currently living with that condition.
The issue is not only diseases and the way they affect people’s mental health, or other factors, but the economic impact, as we have heard clearly from other hon. Members. Some 2.8 million people may be economically inactive due to long-term conditions. After mental health issues, musculoskeletal issues are the second biggest reason why people are economically inactive. That means a tremendous loss of revenue to the Treasury.
There is also a feeling of worthlessness, and people’s mental health going down and down. One of my ladies had MS. She said: “What really creases me is my children have to help me, instead of me helping them.” That really affected her mental health. Reliance on others is one of the biggest issues. There are lots of aids, gadgets and gizmos that can help people to live independently, but they need to know about them. There can be long waits for assessment, treatment or surgery, during which time people’s long-term conditions can deteriorate. We need to ensure that we educate people with these conditions; knowing what their condition is makes it is all the more easy to manage. Knowledge is power here.
We need individual, tailored help. It is not enough to say, “You have osteoarthritis of the hip—you do this.” We have to tailor the programmes to ensure that the individual is very much a part of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said. It is all about putting the person at the centre of the care plan. They are the most important person.
Obviously, I am going to say that exercise and management of the physical condition is key—I am a physio, so I would, wouldn’t I?—but it is important that people do not just curl up in a ball in the corner and think, “That’s it; my life is over.” They can still go on to have worthwhile lives with a long-term condition.
Osteoarthritis happens to the best of us. I look at people’s hands and I can see that they are a bit arthritic-y; I look at the way people walk and can see that, yes, they have a hip or knee problem. Having the disease does not make it inevitable that our function goes down. It is important that we manage the outcome and ensure that people can exercise and maintain their physical fitness.
The Minister will be pleased to know that, as a Welsh MP, I am not going to be making asks of her—I do welcome her to her place and congratulate her—but I hope that she listens to the asks made by my English colleagues and talks to her colleagues in the Department. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, the PIP changes are coming, and we are hearing about welfare reforms. Those are important, and I understand the need for reform, but at the same time we must take account of the variability of people’s conditions, and the assessment process must be done correctly first time. We save an awful lot of time and money on appeals if we can get it right first time, and that is what everybody wants.
Finally, long-term conditions are here, but they can be managed, in partnership between the individual and the services all around. Bring it on.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I follow other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on bringing this vital topic to the House and sharing his insight from his many decades of medical practice as well as the tribute that he paid to his father’s—he clearly comes from a family of strong medical pedigree. He talked about the potential for a boost of more than £109 billion for the economy. He also spoke about the wheels starting to come off, but I say to him that there is no sign of that happening in his case: I have heard him make valuable contributions using his medical experience in many debates in the House.
This topic is important. Analysis from the Office for National Statistics conducted during 2019 and 2020 highlighted that almost half of the UK population reported having a long-standing health problem, with the four most common chronic conditions in the UK for men and women being allergy, high blood pressure, low back disorder and depression. The Health Foundation has found that more than 9 million people in England are projected to be living with a major illness by 2040—an increase of 2.5 million compared with 2019. A third of those surveyed in 2024 did not feel supported to manage their long-term health condition.
Hon. Members have brought out some important themes in the debate. They have talked about the mental health and economic impact, and the importance of social, community and volunteer care, as well as care in hospitals and health facilities. They have talked about the importance of integrating care and ensuring that appointments are co-ordinated to avoid people being pushed from pillar to post in our excellent but sometimes complicated national health service. They have also all highlighted the critical importance of prevention, screening and early diagnosis and detection, as well as the need to reduce waiting times to increase survival chances. A number of hon. Members also highlighted concerns about the benefit system and personal independence payments, and I am sure we all very much look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) shared some very powerful stories from his time as an optometrist, including the impact of sight loss on people’s physical and mental health. He highlighted the potential to save between £8 billion and £13 billion by tackling mental health and wellbeing impacts.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) spoke powerfully about endometriosis—I have a friend called Emma who is also dealing with that condition—and highlighted that two thirds of people expect to live with long-term conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) spoke powerfully about his constituent Andy, who has a benign tumour and functional neurological disorder. My hon. Friend laid out how the NHS and the care system have not always been able to meet Andy’s needs locally, despite their good intentions. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke emotionally and powerfully about how his father’s stroke was detected as a result of a car crash, which paradoxically saved his life, and he also told us how strokes are the fourth most common cause of death and a common cause of disability.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of access to benefits. I pay tribute to his ox-like heart. He mentioned a number of long-term conditions, including type 2 diabetes, COPD, cystic fibrosis and cancer. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about her physiotherapy background. It is so good to have so many Members who bring their past health and medical background to this House. She highlighted that one in six people are affected by arthritis and she quite rightly reminded us that long-term conditions are experienced not only by older people but by people of all ages.
My constituent, Terry, has a range of long-term health issues, some spanning more than 20 years. There is little to no co-ordination of his care. He has had doctors from multiple hospitals and specialist centres working on medical care, with no one named person in charge and in control. Therefore, there is sometimes difficulty resolving conflicting medical priorities.
This week is national Diabetes Week. Retinopathy is a serious diabetic complication that can cause blindness, and until recently it was the leading cause of blindness in the working population. Regular eye screening is key to detect this condition. My constituent, Carolyn, has written to me to express how difficult it is to access this essential service in Oxfordshire. A new service has been contracted by NHS England—for as long as it is here—to do that work with far fewer centres. Making screening more difficult to access will meant that there will be people who find it too difficult to access that important service.
My constituent, Jess, has been struggling with endometriosis for 14 years because of misdiagnosis. As a result, her condition has progressed and worsened, which could have been avoided with better informed doctors and greater awareness. In the UK, diagnosis for the condition takes an average of nearly nine years, and one in six women who have endometriosis have to leave the workplace because of it.
As Members have said, the personal independence payment scoring system is not fit for purpose. My constituent, Sally, has progressive MS. She scored 12 points and was rejected, but someone with a different disability scored eight points and was approved. That is because of the proposed “four points in one activity” rule, which can punish people with complex whole-body conditions just because their needs are spread across multiple areas. My constituent was unable to work for a number of months, but did not qualify for PIP. That highlights the importance of making sure that our disability benefits system is fit for purpose. It must recognise real human needs and not just view people as numbers in a system.
The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research, but under the previous Government, the UK only became sicker, and it now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want the new Government to take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives. They should start by reversing Conservative cuts to public health funding and investing in community services, so that everyone can see a GP within seven days.
We must also end the crisis in social care, which is a disaster for people with long-term conditions and for our NHS. I repeat our call for the current review into social care to be concluded this year, not in three years. We have had many reviews into social care. We do not need further reviews; we need action. We are pressing for better social care for disabled people, including free personal care and more support for family carers, such as through more respite breaks and paid carer’s leave. We would also give everyone a new right to flexible working, and every disabled person the right to work from home if they want to unless there are significant business reasons why that is not possible.
We would make it easier for people with long-term conditions and disabled people to access public life—including the world of work—by, for example, adopting new accessibility standards for public spaces, improving the legislative framework for blue badges and incorporating the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into UK law. There is much work to be done to raise employers’ awareness of the Access to Work scheme, simplifying and speeding up the application process, introducing adjustment passports to record the adjustments, modifications and equipment that a disabled person has received and ensuring that Access to Work support and equipment stays with the person if they change jobs.
As I mentioned, social care is critical to ensuring that people with long-term health conditions are properly cared for, recognising that hundreds of thousands of people are stranded in hospital beds because they are waiting for capacity in the care system. To that end, this is Carers Week, and the Liberal Democrats are campaigning to empower care users and to support care workers and the millions of unpaid carers looking after loved ones, some of whom we have heard about this afternoon. We would create a social care workforce plan, establish a royal college of care workers to improve recognition and career progression, and introduce a higher minimum wage for carers.
Boosting public health and helping people to recover from mental ill health will be critical to achieving progress, as will tackling chronic fatigue and ME. A number of hon. Members highlighted the importance of the better use of data and technology to understand health trends and improve care. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on those topics and others covered by hon. Members.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as an NHS consultant paediatrician. In my clinical work, I have seen at first hand the impact that chronic conditions can have not just on the health of individuals but on their families, their carers and their wider communities. These are conditions that can shape daily life in profound and enduring ways.
In some respects, the increased prevalence of long-term conditions is a success story for the medical fraternity, because some conditions that previously would have led to a patient’s death can now be managed effectively for a longer period of time, and people can continue to live happy, healthy and fulfilling lives. There is no silver bullet for tackling such conditions, but effective interventions and systems can improve quality of life, enable independence —we have heard about the importance of that—and reduce avoidable healthcare costs. Such interventions require a co-ordinated, whole-system approach, bringing together local authorities, NHS trusts, public health, education, social care and the voluntary sector.
I am glad that the Government are talking about a move away from reactive and acute-based care towards prevention, rehabilitation and supported self-management in the long term. I note that the hon. Member talked about care on Teesside some years ago. As someone who grew up on Teesside, I remember the Carter Bequest hospital—I do not know whether his father had anything to do with that—which was the local community hospital providing community care for many local residents.
We increasingly see patients living with not just one long-term illness but multiple long-term illnesses, known as multi-morbidity. That provides challenges, because sometimes the medication that one would ideally provide a patient for condition A is complicated because they also have condition B, for which they are taking something else that would interact with that medication. A patient might also need an operation but not be able to have it because another condition makes the anaesthetic risk too high, so the management of the second condition might have to be suboptimal as a result of the first condition. Some people have more than two conditions.
One of the challenges that people with long-term conditions will face is staffing and workforce. I notice that the Government have decided to cancel, or at least significantly reduce the availability of, level 7 apprenticeships, which train our specialist nurses in advanced clinical practice, our district nurses and our community nurses. Will the Minister talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education about how there can be a move towards community care and prevention if they are going to make it more difficult to train the people who would provide that care?
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) talked about the delay in follow-up appointments. I have seen that myself. One of the challenges is that when one is under pressure to meet the 18-week pathway and there is no similar pressure on follow-up appointment timings, the consultant’s clinic inevitably ends up with more new patients and fewer follow-ups. The follow-ups get pushed back, often for many months. How will the Minister’s team ensure that the pressure to meet the 18-week pathway does not cause chronic illness to be covered less well than it is now?
I was also interested in what the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) had to say about exercise and lifestyle. I see a lot of children with varying conditions in my clinics as a paediatrician, and I have been amazed by how fresh air and exercise, diet and hydration, sleep, and not spending hours on computers, particularly in the evening and through the night, can make a whole range of medical conditions better. We know that the same is true of adult care in some cases. While it is not the cure for all conditions—of course it is not—in some cases it can help people to live better with the conditions that they have. I am interested that in some cases people are allowed only a few physio appointments before they get referred back to their GP. Perhaps longer courses of physio treatment could help people a little more.
Multimorbidity was recognised as a priority in the previous Government’s health and care White Paper in 2022. Community diagnostic centres opened in order to play a vital role in providing quicker access to essential tests, dealing with the backlog left by the covid pandemic. There are two centres near my constituency, in Grantham and Lincoln. I visited the one in Lincoln recently, which has had very good feedback from constituents and is providing a great service. Can the Minister confirm that community diagnostic centres will continue to be well funded following the spending review?
The previous Government launched a major conditions strategy in 2023, aiming to address six key areas—cancer, heart disease, musculoskeletal disorders, mental ill health, dementia and respiratory disease—but the current Government have paused work on this strategy. They came to power saying that they had a plan. They stopped the plan that we had, because they wanted to think of their own, which is fair enough. But we are now three weeks out from the first anniversary of their election, and still this magic plan has not appeared. I say to the Minister that this is too long to wait for people who are unwell. Can she, at the very least, commit that the 10-year plan will be published before we have lost one year in which the Government could have started delivering it?
Musculoskeletal conditions are particularly common long-term conditions, affecting around 20 million people in the UK—that is a third of women and about 30% of men. They are the second most common cause of economic inactivity after mental health, and take a considerable toll. I thank advocacy organisations such as Versus Arthritis for their tireless campaigning on this issue. They have highlighted how these conditions disproportionately affect women and those living in deprived communities.
The recent cuts to the personal independence payments proposed by the Government have disproportionately affected people with MSK conditions. Have the Government conducted an impact assessment? My concern with the PIP changes is that they were announced to meet an economic target, rather than being properly thought through. Can the Minister confirm whether they have been properly thought through? Has an impact assessment been conducted, and if so, will she ensure that it is published so that we can all study it in some detail?
Mental health should be treated as a core component of long-term care. People with long-term conditions are two to three times more likely to experience mental ill health. Research shows that people who are confident in managing their long-term conditions have not just fewer A&E visits and hospital admissions but better mental health. What concrete steps are the Government taking to improve mental health provisions specifically for those with long-term conditions?
Rehabilitation can be just as important to health outcomes as medicine and surgery. As was mentioned earlier in the context of strokes, some people have very good stroke rehab care, but for others that is less of the case. Rehabilitation, particularly early rehabilitation, is very important. Providing timely rehab and self-management advice would significantly reduce the number of people diagnosed with health conditions in their 40s and 50s, for example, being pushed out of the workforce, which drives both income and health inequality.
Is improved access to community rehabilitation for people with long-term conditions part of the Government’s plan to shift from hospital to community care, keeping people out of hospital and in work for longer? I know that the plan is not published yet, but perhaps the Minister knows. Long-term conditions will define the health and social care agenda of the next decade. That requires a joined-up strategy across healthcare, the Department of Work and Pensions, and social care, and for the Government to support the most vulnerable and maximise the quality of life for all our constituents who suffer from long-term conditions.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is my first time speaking from the Front Bench, so please bear with me if I get my papers mixed up. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this debate, and for speaking so passionately on the subject, using his decades of experience of caring for patients in the NHS. I also thank all the other Members for their insightful contributions, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, especially because it is taking place during Diabetes Week. We have had more than 10 meaningful contributions, and I wish to respond to them individually. I have noted them all down, and if I do not get to them all, I will ask the relevant Minister to respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is concerned about economic inactivity, hospital-to-community care, the digital transition for patients, and research and development. I have, in my pack, full answers for my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) spoke passionately about sight loss and his time as an optometrist, as well as about macular degeneration and Charles Bonnet syndrome.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My office is supporting a vulnerable, elderly constituent, who has multiple sclerosis and suffers nervous breakdowns, having also battled hip cancer and undergone a hip replacement. Does the Minister agree that the failure to provide people with social care and early-intervention support can often expose individuals to a cascade of further suffering, and of course increases the strain on our health services?
Gen Kitchen
I agree, and I will come to comorbidities and some of the strategies in the 10-year plan later in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) spoke about endometriosis. I was very sorry and dismayed to hear about her constituent Angela Tiernan, who has endometriosis in her chest cavity. I assure my hon. Friend that urgent action to tackle gynaecological care is taking place through the elective reform plan, and we are having significant successes in that area.
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I was also dismayed to hear about his constituent Andy’s benign brain tumour. I was particularly dismayed to hear about his treatment, and the transfer of services to the community. The hon. Member rightly asked about the administration from care to community. I assure him that further work on the national neighbourhood health implementation programme will come after the 10-year health plan. I see that issue all the time in Wellingborough and Rushden, as he does in his constituency. As a semi-rural community, we have very little in the way of community healthcare, so I am also pushing that forward. I will ask the relevant Minister to respond directly to him about Andy’s case.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) gave an impassioned and personal speech about his father’s stroke. I am grateful to him for highlighting and raising awareness of the F-A-S-T action that people can take if they think that someone is having a stroke. I reassure him that the NHS is actively working to provide access to 24/7 thrombectomy services across England and Wales.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his speech. As he said, health in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I assure him that the Secretary of State is regularly engaging with his counterpart across the sea on all the issues that the hon. Member outlined, which were many. He told his personal story of diabetes, and spoke about COPD, cancer, cystic fibrosis and many other conditions. I share the sentiment that it is marvellous that so many people will now survive cancer. As he may know, my father is currently undergoing treatment for his terminal diagnosis. I reassure the hon. Member—and it gives me some hope—that the national cancer plan is coming.
We had a lovely intervention from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who is also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes. I thank him for his work on diabetes awareness.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for her many years of service as a physiotherapist, and I thank her daughter for her many years of service as a doctor. My hon. Friend rightly raised arthritis and all the great work that she did as a physiotherapist. I am sure that she is aware of the great work that the National Institute for Health and Care Research is doing with Versus Arthritis in funding dedicated UK MSK translational research. She will also be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published expert guidance on early diagnosis to speed up that process. She will know that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions are committed to supporting disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. A range of support is available already, including some that joins up the health and employment support systems. I agree that we need to get it right first time, because a system that has an over 90% appeal approval rating is not getting it right first time.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and I spent a lot of time together on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee; I am glad to be able to finally respond to him on things. I was very sorry to hear about his friend Emma and his constituents Terry and Jess, who have a range of health conditions. I was particularly dismayed to hear that Terry had no one named person in his multidisciplinary team. That should not be happening.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asked many questions, which I have noted down. If she does not get the answers in my speech, I will press the relevant Minister to write to her. She asked about training and apprenticeships. To reassure her, a new workforce plan will be coming after the 10-year plan, and the 10-year plan will be coming in the summer. I would love a community diagnostic centre as well; in a semi-rural constituency, it is very hard to get care. I will press a Minister to write to her, following the spending review.
I pass on apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), the Minister for public health and prevention, who is passionate about improving care and support for people with long-term conditions, and had really looked forward to responding to this debate. Unfortunately, due to the medical emergency of a family member with a long-term condition, she is unable to be in Westminster this week, but she hopes to return to Westminster as soon as possible to write the letters that I have promised on her behalf.
This is a busy afternoon in the House for the Health Department, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care currently representing the Government in a general debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid pandemic in the main Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Care currently serving on the Mental Health Bill Committee. I am pleased to be here to respond on their behalf to such an important debate, and I hope that my remarks demonstrate that improving support for those with long-term conditions is a priority for this Government.
Over 15 million people in England have long-term health conditions, and many people live with two or more. Every one of us has a constituent living with a long-term condition; even some of my colleagues in this place who have shared their stories today have long- term conditions. Given that the prevalence of long-term conditions generally increases with age, the number of people with such conditions in our society will only get bigger, as new treatments and technologies keep us alive for longer. Let me be clear: that is to be celebrated. It is a wonderful and amazing thing to happen, but it is critical that we have the health architecture in place to manage those changes.
That is why building a health service and care system fit for the future is central to this Government’s mission. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the multi-year spending review, which prioritises health, with a record investment in the health and social care system that will improve treatment, support and outcomes, and help those living with long-term conditions. The Government are providing £29 billion more in day-to-day funding in real terms than in 2023-24, and the largest-ever health capital budget, with a £2.3 billion real-terms increase in spending over the spending review period.
The spending review puts the NHS on a sustainable footing by cutting the waiting lists so that by the end of the Parliament 92% of patients will start consultant-led treatment for non-urgent health conditions within 18 weeks of referral, delivering on the Prime Minister’s plan for change and commitment to prioritising people’s health. The settlement also supports the shift from analogue to digital, with a total investment of up to £10 billion in NHS technology and transformation between 2026-27 and 2028-29—an almost 50% increase from 2025-26.
Colleagues will know that we have undertaken the biggest ever conversation about the NHS since its creation. We have received more than 270,000 contributions and had almost 2 million visits to our online portal, a significant number of which were from people with long-term conditions. We will ensure that their voices are heard in the 10-year plan. The plan will deliver three big shifts to ensure the NHS is fit for the future: from hospital to community, which we have spoken about a lot this afternoon; from analogue to digital, which was also mentioned a couple of times; and from sickness to prevention. All three are relevant to improving the diagnosis, care and management of long-term conditions in all parts of the country.
We will see more tests and scans in the community, in high street settings, to reduce the need for people to take multiple trips to hospital to get diagnosed—a particular issue in Wellingborough and Rushden, because we do not have a hospital or a bus service. We will see better joint working in neighbourhoods between primary care, pharmacies, community healthcare, such as district nurses, and social care to help people to manage multiple long- term conditions at home. That will help them access the right self-care professional support so that they are not passed from service to service, and will reduce the need for emergency hospital admissions. Again, that is brilliant for Wellingborough and Rushden, as I am sure it is for all hon. Members’ constituencies.
We will see better access to technology that helps people to manage their health conditions in their own home, such as apps and wearable technologies, to reduce the need to go to hospital or other healthcare settings. We will have better, joined-up access to healthcare records, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket suggested, to ensure that those working in health and care are better able to support patients in planned and emergency care, and that patients feel confident that the clinicians who are treating them know about their conditions.
There have been many mentions in the debate of the changes to welfare and economic activity. We recognise that people with long-term conditions face multiple challenges in trying to remain in work. Long-term sickness continues to be the most common reason for economic inactivity among the working-age population.
Alison Hume
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her turn speaking from the Front Bench. DWP analysis suggests that people with long-term conditions such as arthritis are more likely than most to be affected by the changes to PIP. Does she acknowledge that taking away PIP from people with long-term conditions such as arthritis, which can fluctuate and vary, could be devastating?
Gen Kitchen
I acknowledge that those with long-term health conditions such as arthritis will rightly be very worried about what is happening, considering that only a Green Paper, rather than a Bill, has been published. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department of Health and Social Care and the DWP are committed to supporting disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. There is already a range of support that is online and working, but we want those who are in work and can stay there to do so, and we want people to get back to work. Those measures include joining up the health and employment support around the individual through employment advisers, NHS talking therapies, individual placements, support in primary care and WorkWell, as well as work coaches and disability employment advisers at the jobcentre. That will get people back to work if they can, and keep working people in work.
We have a range of specialist initiatives to support individuals. Things currently online include WorkWell, and Connect to Work is coming online as we speak. We are also mobilising eight place-based trailblazers to reduce economic inactivity in places where we can see that it is really key.
On elective care, our plan for change is clear that our immediate priority on health is to reduce elective waiting lists to meet the NHS constitutional standard that 92% should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. We have hit that pledge already—more than 2 million more elective care appointments have happened early—and we have now exceeded it by delivering over 3.5 million more appointments.
Gen Kitchen
Thank you. In fact, the waiting list has been cut by over 200,000 since we came into office.
Another topic touched on a lot was social care, its effective use and access to it. Effective and accessible social care is crucial for people with long-term conditions.
Dr Johnson
There is a question that I have been wondering about. Baroness Casey is doing a report for the Government on social care, but she is also doing a report on child abuse. We were told initially that those reports would run consecutively, but they appear now to be running concurrently. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to be able to answer the question now, because she is standing in for somebody else, but it would be helpful if she could get us a written answer on what proportion of Baroness Casey’s time is currently devoted to the Home Office, and what proportion to healthcare.
Gen Kitchen
I was coming on to Baroness Louise Casey’s report to the Prime Minister. I will try to get an answer from the Departments she is working with. Hon. Members will be aware that we have launched the independent commission into adult social care as part of our critical first steps to delivering a national care service. It is chaired by Baroness Louise Casey and reporting to the Prime Minister. The commission will make clear recommendations for how to rebuild social care systems to meet the current and future needs of the population, but I will make sure that Ministers write to the hon. Lady on her specific question.
We also had a small discussion on unpaid carers and how crucial they are for individuals with long-term conditions. These unpaid carers, often family members or spouses, do vital and essential work that helps people to manage their long-term conditions and also helps the health service. Lord Darzi’s independent review of the national health service highlighted the need for a fresh approach to supporting and involving unpaid carers, to improve outcomes across the board for carers and those they care for. Those findings are being carefully considered as part of our 10-year plan to reform and modernise the NHS. We continue to shape our plans to reform adult social care, including through the national care service.
We cannot underestimate the toll of living with one or more long-term health conditions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made an intervention about the mental health support that is needed for long-term conditions. Living with one or more long-term conditions can put significant stress on an individual’s mental wellbeing and can lead to stress, worry and depression—all of which come to our constituency doors a lot. Two thirds of people with a common mental health problem also have a long-term physical condition. That is why the NHS is prioritising the development of NHS talking therapies to include a focus on people with long-term conditions. These services bring together mental and physical health providers to work in a co-ordinated way to achieve the best outcomes for all.
I feel that I have been speaking a rather long time, so, to conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, for securing the debate, and all those who have spoken. The debate has been extremely wide ranging and covered conditions from across the spectrum, many of which I cannot pronounce. I hope that Ministers will be able to write back to hon. Members and reassure them on some of the questions they have raised today.
It is understandable that we have covered so many topics, given the sheer number and breadth of long-term conditions and the multitude of challenges they pose for individuals, their families, their communities and the healthcare system. For that reason, as I said, I have not been able to cover in full the well-informed points that were made throughout the course of the debate. However, my hon. Friend the Minister for public health and prevention has committed to writing to all hon. Members who have raised specific concerns today.
Peter Prinsley
I thank all who have contributed to this interesting discussion. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and Rushden (Gen Kitchen), who has acquitted herself extraordinarily well and should be congratulated. It is quite obvious that many of our fellow citizens are depending on us. It is also obvious to me that the politics of healthcare really do matter. We have an opportunity to do something about this, and we must seize that opportunity, because I believe that is one of our great missions. I thank everyone very much for coming to the debate this afternoon.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
My congratulations to the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden for filling in ably for the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered long-term conditions.
UK-Singapore Investment Treaty
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The Government will shortly end negotiations with Singapore on the UK-Singapore bilateral investment treaty.
Negotiations were launched in March 2023 to strengthen the UK-Singapore investment relationship, through agreeing modern provisions to guarantee high standards of fair treatment for investors, in line with a commitment in the 2020 UK-Singapore free trade agreement. As British investors in Singapore now benefit from the high-standard investment protections gained through our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership (having formally joined in December 2024), we are ending negotiations on the UK-Singapore BIT. We will instead focus on efforts to further facilitate and promote investment and to boost our economic growth, as well as to build on the stock of UK investment in Singapore, and Singapore’s stock of investment in the UK, which stand at £15.7 billion and £19.3 billion respectively.
The strong co-operative relationship between the UK and Singapore extends beyond investment. On digital trade, seven memoranda of understanding signed alongside the UK-Singapore digital economy agreement facilitate co-operation in several key areas, including fintech and lawtech services. Trade digitalisation pilots conducted under the DEA demonstrated significant business benefits to trade in goods, including a 40% reduction in trade processing time, an 89% reduction in paperwork, and a 67% improvement in staff productivity. We are looking forward to continuing our close collaboration on digital innovation.
To further strengthen our trading relationship, we will continue to work closely with Singapore, as part of CPTPP, to modernise trade rules and promote deeper co-operation with other economies, including through accessions and the general review.
[HCWS695]
Wholesale Cash Firms: Oversight Regime
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Wholesale cash distribution is the mechanism that supplies physical cash—specifically banknotes and coins—to retail banks, cash machines and the wider retail market. This is a vital mechanism for ensuring the sustainable provision of and reliable public access to cash.
Under part 5A of the Banking Act 2009, the Bank of England is responsible for managing risks to the effectiveness, resilience, and sustainability of the WCD system. Specifically, the Act gives the Bank of England powers to “oversee” firms recognised by the Treasury in wholesale cash oversight orders as performing relevant WCD activities and as being market significant. The Bank of England can give directions, issue codes of practice, and supervise firms’ compliance. Further detail on the Bank of England’s supervisory approach can be found in its statement of policy. 1
His Majesty’s Treasury’s decision on recognition
Today I am announcing which firms the Treasury has specified as recognised persons in wholesale cash oversight orders. As required under the Act, in making this decision the Treasury has: notified firms it considered for recognition; sought and considered any representations from these firms; and consulted relevant regulators, including the Bank of England.
Following this extensive process, I am announcing today that HM Treasury has made wholesale cash oversight orders to the following firms:
Barclays Bank UK PLC;
Barclays Bank PLC;
G4S Cash Centres (UK) Limited;
HSBC UK Bank PLC;
HSBC Bank PLC;
Lloyds Bank PLC;
Bank of Scotland PLC;
National Westminster Bank Public Limited Company;
The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company;
Post Office Limited;
Santander UK PLC;
Vaultex UK Limited.
These wholesale cash oversight orders have been made on 5 June 2025 and will come into force today, 12 June 2025.
In making these orders I have considered the requirements under section 28 of the Small Business, Enterprise, and Employment Act 2015. This requires Minsters to include in certain secondary legislation that regulates businesses and other bodies a provision for review or a statement as to why this is not appropriate.
I consider a provision for review inappropriate as it would be disproportionate relative to the economic impact. The impact on business is expected to be de minimis with annual fees that the Bank of England can charge recognised firms effectively capped by the Treasury, detailed in the Banking Act 2009 (Wholesale Cash Oversight Fees) Regulations 2024. The Bank of England can charge a maximum of £400,000 per firm per year for supervision fees and £150,000 for “special projects”. The current aggregate impact of making these orders is de minimis as defined in the better regulation framework.
Further, including a provision for review would be undesirable for particular policy reasons. The legislation contains provisions which necessitate ongoing review, meaning further provisions would be duplicative. Under section 206J of the Banking Act 2009, HM Treasury must revoke an order if it is no longer satisfied that the firm meets the relevant criteria. Section 206Z2 also requires the Bank of England to produce an annual report on the discharge of its functions and the extent to which risks in the WCD system have been managed. That report will subsequently be laid in Parliament. HM Treasury also plans routine engagement with the Bank of England that will monitor the implementation and impact of the regime.
1 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/paper/2023/sop/sop-on-the-banks-supervisory-approach-to-market-oversight-for-wholesale-cash-distribution
[HCWS698]
Local Government Best Value: Croydon Council
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
As I have previously stated when updating the House, this Government are committed to resetting the relationship between central and regional government, and to establishing partnerships built on mutual respect, genuine collaboration and meaningful engagement. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent, and this Government are taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. I am today updating the House on the steps that we are taking to support the London borough of Croydon to recover and reform.
London borough of Croydon
I am today publishing the latest report of the London borough of Croydon improvement and assurance panel, which I received in April. The report acknowledges and welcomes the hard work of the council’s members and staff and notes that there has been some progress over the course of the intervention, which is due to end on 20 July this year. However, the council’s financial position is deteriorating rapidly and the report documents serious concerns, particularly on the council’s ability to improve, on some aspects of leadership and on the use of resources.
Croydon remains one of the most financially distressed councils in the country. The council’s general fund debt sits at around £1.4 billion and it relies on the allocation of exceptional financial support through in-principle capitalisation directions to balance its budget. The dramatic increase in the council’s £136 million EFS for 2025-26, from £38 million granted for 2024-25, is highly concerning. The council has received approximately £553 million in total EFS since March 2021. This is simply not sustainable.
Failing to change course would condemn Croydon’s residents to a worsening position without an exit strategy. The report sets out that there has been a lack of pace throughout the intervention, but the deteriorating financial position, which is not being gripped and tackled adequately by the council, is reaching a “financial crisis”. The stabilisation plan has been in development since late January, but this does not yet provide a concrete plan to achieve the efficiencies and transformation that the council has committed to. Poor financial information and forecasting and a lack of controls have contributed to the deterioration of the financial position. There is an increasing reliance on Government support to balance the budget, operating costs continue to be “unreasonably high” and the medium-term financial strategy projects the general fund debt to rise to over £1.9 billion by 2029.
The panel documents the council’s ambition to deliver transformation but is concerned that the council will find it “enormously challenging” to deliver the necessary transformation and reduce spending while maintaining day-to-day delivery. The report notes that, based on benchmarking data, the council’s operating costs can be improved to be more in line with other authorities. I have carefully considered the report and other relevant material, including the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge. I am satisfied that the London borough of Croydon is failing to comply with its best value duty. I am therefore minded to exercise powers of direction under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1999 to implement an intervention package that ensures the council’s compliance with its best value duty.
Proposed package
I am satisfied that the scale of the financial difficulties facing Croydon, the failure of the council to adequately respond to these difficulties and the assurance required moving forward means that a short and sharp reset, with fast action, is required to shift the dial on the council’s recovery. On balance, I believe this is best achieved by escalating the statutory intervention to a commissioner-led model, to ensure that the council can achieve sustained change at the pace needed.
The finalisation and implementation of the council’s stabilisation plan, and in time a recovery plan, will be fundamental to Croydon’s transformation, reform and recovery. Commissioners will have greater scope to challenge and support the council to finalise and implement its stabilisation plan and deliver realistic transformation and savings, in line with what the council has committed to. I envisage the appointment of commissioners until 20 July 2027, with a review of the progress of the intervention after 12 months.
Representations
I am inviting representations from the London borough of Croydon and any other interested parties on the proposed intervention package by Wednesday 25 June.
I will carefully consider all representations before deciding how to proceed. The proposal to intervene is not taken lightly but is designed to strengthen and accelerate improvement to ensure that the council delivers for its residents. With council focus and support from the commissioners, I expect the council to demonstrate swift and sustained progress necessary to ensuring compliance with its best value duty.
Conclusion
I am committed to working in partnership with the London borough of Croydon to provide the necessary support to ensure its compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents and service users expect.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS697]
Northern Ireland: Civil Disorder
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I would like to update the House on the civil disorder in Ballymena and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. I have been in contact with the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
The violence we have witnessed over the last three days is deeply shocking, including the attacks on police officers as they have worked to keep people safe and the attempts to burn people out of their homes. Such behaviour is completely unacceptable and has no place in Northern Ireland. Those involved will be brought to justice.
I urge all of those in positions of leadership to continue to work together to help bring this disorder to an end and to rebuild community relations, and I want to thank all those community leaders who are working hard, night and day, to bring calm back to our streets.
On Monday 9 June, approximately 4,000 people attended a peaceful vigil in the Harryville area of Ballymena to show support following reports of a sexual assault. I am saddened by those reports and my thoughts are with those affected. This case is now before the courts, and the PSNI and prosecutors must be given the time and space to do their jobs.
Despite the majority of people engaging in peaceful protest, a number of masked individuals broke away from the vigil and began to attack police officers using petrol bombs and masonry. Properties in the area were also attacked.
On Tuesday 10 June, in a second night of disorder in Ballymena, police officers again came under sustained attack from petrol bombs, heavy masonry, bricks and fireworks. PSNI officers discharged a number of attenuating energy projectiles, and deployed a water cannon and public order dogs to disperse the crowds. Properties were again attacked and damaged, and a number of vehicles in the area were set on fire.
On Wednesday 11 June, there was further disorder in Ballymena—AEPs and water cannon were again deployed —and in Larne a group set fire to the leisure centre where some of the families displaced from the disorder in Ballymena had been taken. The fire, in the reception area, was extinguished but there is smoke damage. The families that had been in the centre had all been safely relocated. In Coleraine, disorder led to bus and train services being suspended during the evening.
As policing and justice are devolved matters in Northern Ireland, the response to the disorder is being led by the PSNI and the devolved Government. I have been receiving regular updates from the Chief Constable both on the disorder, and the impact on PSNI officers. A mutual aid request has been submitted by the PSNI to the National Police Co-ordination Centre. The PSNI has my full support as it works to bring those responsible to justice.
More than 30 police officers have been injured. The House will want to pass its best wishes to them for a speedy recovery. Police officers working to protect local communities should not have to face this kind of attack. The fact that they continue in their duties despite this is testament to their commitment to the community they serve. I will be meeting the Chief Constable and some of those officers who have been keeping people safe in Ballymena, and will have an opportunity to thank them and pass on my wishes for their swift recovery.
Peaceful protest is an important part of our democratic society but what we have seen is disorder which has harmed the local community and caused fear, suffering and disruption to those living in the area.
Northern Ireland is a welcoming, open place. In my time as Secretary of State I have spoken to many people across Northern Ireland who want to work together to build a safer, more prosperous future. The vast majority of people are shocked by this disorder and the harm it has caused.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the PSNI, the NI Ambulance Service and the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, as well as to the community and local organisations and agencies, who have worked in difficult conditions over the past few days to keep people safe.
[HCWS696]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to an afternoon of four Questions for Short Debate. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes, but, as can been seen from the screens, there will not be a Division. Indeed, if noble Lords do not mind my saying so, I rather wish this Committee was starting half an hour later so that I could ask a supplementary question in the spending review Statement about the importance of science and technology to the future growth of this country—however, it is my job. Indeed, I thought if I sang “Happy Birthday” to the noble Lord on his feet in the Chamber, I wonder how Hansard would report that, but that is a separate matter as well.
Cardiovascular Illnesses
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Booth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the detection, prevention and treatment of cardiovascular illness.
Lord Booth (Con)
My Lords, the idea for this debate came about at the end of January, when I was lying in a hospital bed, where I had been for nearly four weeks receiving treatment for my heart. Those were the later stages of what had been a long journey for me since 2011. One surgeon described me as an interesting case, so I intend, with the indulgence of the Committee, to tell you about my heart history, as it is important.
When I came into House last year, I was told that our individual expertise and experiences should form part of what we do here. It is an area that I intend to pursue further. Since I initiated this debate, I have received lots of representations from different groups; before then, I did not appreciate the significance of cardiovascular disease and its causes, which are considerable.
It is very difficult to talk about your own health; it is a very un-British thing to do. I saw on Facebook earlier this week when someone asked, “What do we do as the British?” an answer was that we say, “I’m fine, thank you”. That is how we tend to react to things. I find coming out to Peers and telling them about my heart and health issues far more difficult than I did the more traditional way of coming out, which I did many years ago.
My heart issues began in 2011, when I was at the peak of my business career. I was fit and healthy; I went to the gym three times a week. I was floored by an illness called endocarditis, an infection that goes around the heart valve. Its detection was very difficult, as were the subsequent detections of the other heart-related illnesses that I have had. I intend to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly, because there have been some very good and very bad responses from clinicians, and I have seen some very ugly things in hospitals in the United Kingdom.
In 2011, I suffered a flu-like illness, getting fevers and sweats at night. I went to my GP, who basically told me that I probably had the flu and that I should go away, rest and take a couple of paracetamols. Unfortunately, that persisted over a number of days, and I presented myself to accident and emergency. There, I was again told that I probably had flu and that I should go away.
It was not until a week later, when my partner insisted that I go back to accident and emergency, that we began to have some results. If I had not seen a young African lady doctor, who was brought up and trained in Africa, the endocarditis would not have been recognised, because it is not very common in this country. It is increasingly common; in Africa, malnutrition causes endocarditis, and in this country, it is more common for people on drugs because, as they progress with serious drug taking, they become malnourished too.
That was my first episode, in 2011. As a result of that, I had angiograms and all sorts of heart checks. They decided that I had had a bicuspid valve from birth. I do not know whether noble Lords know this, but valves in the heart are tricuspid—they have three chambers. However, it is not uncommon for people to have bicuspid valves; 10% to 15% of people do. It is not recognised when you are younger, because you are fit and healthy, but it becomes prevalent as we get older and everything begins to clog up inside. That necessitated a valve replacement. In May 2012, I had a tissue valve fitted—I chose that rather than a metal valve because the thought of something ticking in my chest horrified me, and still does.
That was a life-changing event. I was at the peak of my business career, but major open-heart surgery—I am a member of the “zipper club”—makes you think about everything you are doing in your life. I retired, and we decided to move from where we lived in Brighton to Cornwall. The finances worked out, as in those days it was much cheaper to live there, and the treatment with the valve was at the time very successful.
I then entered what I call the fallow years for my heart, which lasted until much more recently. The only medical interventions I had were in 2015, when I had my left hip replaced, and 2017, when I had my right hip replaced. That is part of the reason why medical people say that I have an interesting history.
In 2022, one Monday morning, I woke up and literally could not move. I was in utter agony. If I tried to move my leg one inch, all the muscles in my leg spasmed. A lady doctor later told me that I had discitis, which she described as like being permanently in birth for six weeks—the pain was that bad. It was at the tail end of lockdown; I managed to get the local hospital to acknowledge my illness, which was again a difficult process, over about 10 days, and I went in. Yet again, the discitis may also have been endocarditis, because the treatment for the two is the same—six weeks of intravenous antibiotics four times a day. The hospital was in lockdown, so they were not prepared to move me around the hospital to find out whether I did have endocarditis.
At the end of that, in 2023, I had a TAVI valve fitted, which is a sleeve that fits inside another valve, because the discitis, and possible endocarditis, was caused by my artificial heart valve leaking. The TAVI valve goes inside. They hoped that the sleeve inside the valve would solve the problem, which it did, so I was very lucky to come out in one piece again.
That was the cardio side of it. The vascular side started in 2023 when I went to my GP complaining of pains in my legs—in my calves—which were sometimes really bad and made it virtually impossible to walk. They did various tests, but did not find anything at that stage. They sent me for scans, which showed that I had a narrowing of the arteries in the leg, which was causing the pain. It is known as intermittent claudication, which is named after the Emperor Claudius, who limped.
I beg your Lordships’ indulgence for a slight amount more; I know that I am coming to the end of my time. As part of the treatment, I was fitted with a heart monitor at the beginning of this year. I was called two days later and told that I had to go into hospital to have a pacemaker fitted. The long and the short of it is I went into hospital and they did the tests for the pacemaker. It was found that I needed two stents. I then acquired a massive hospital infection. I collapsed at home the day after, which is why I was in hospital for nearly four weeks, after which time I had the pacemaker fitted.
That is the history. It is quite complicated. I had intended to go on and talk about all the other people who have sent me information, but I see that I have reached my 10 minutes, so I will cease shortly. My questions to the noble Baroness are on whether we could look more at prevention and diagnosis. I was failed in diagnosis in primary care, so can we look more at diagnosis? The treatment that I had—the surgeries—was excellent, but I found a failure in the aftercare in all the processes that I went through. I am a minute over time, so I will finish now. I appreciate your Lordships’ indulgence.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing this debate, on his very personal account of what he went through and on sharing with us his experiences and what we can learn from them.
As a former Health Minister who had some responsibility in this area, I know that cardiovascular illness can be particularly prevalent in areas of high deprivation. NHS figures show that, in 2023, the most deprived 10% of the population were almost twice as likely to die of cardiovascular disease compared to the least deprived. An NAO report published in 2024 said that, in 2020, deaths in those aged under 75 due to cardiovascular disease were four times higher in the most deprived areas compared to the least.
I recently attended an event organised in Parliament by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vascular and Venous Disease, where I was particularly struck by the points made about those regional variations—not just in death rates but in treatment and prevention. In the South Yorkshire ICB area, only 3.1% of the population received a health check in 2023-24, despite 32% of adults being obese and 23.5% being physically inactive. There are also worrying disparities in amputation rates. In Yorkshire and Humber, there are 12.6 amputations per 100,000 people, which is almost double that of London; only the north-west and north-east of England have higher amputation rates.
I know that the British Heart Foundation has welcomed the Government’s recognition of CVD as one of the UK’s biggest killers and their ambition to reduce premature deaths from heart disease and stroke by 25% in the next decade. The foundation has also called for a national cardiovascular disease plan. I wonder if, in her closing remarks, the Minister might address whether the Government are looking at that idea to bring together areas that need to be tackled, such as obesity, smoking, air pollution and increased research.
In the time I have available to me, I want to make a few practical points that could address some of these disparities. Health checks are so important, but the 2024 NAO report said that there was “no systematic” way of
“targeting … those most in need of”
health checks, as well as little incentive for primary care providers to provide them. It also said that
“DHSC and local authorities cannot … access data … so cannot assess the impact”
that health checks are having. Perhaps my noble friend could address this or write to me if she does not have the information to hand.
The all-party group has made a number of points. For example, appointing more nurse practitioners would enable what it called hot clinics. In many ways, this would help to reduce the length of waiting times. At present, there are patients who are at risk of amputation of their legs. Obviously, they need to be prioritised. A hot clinic could do this by having nurse practitioners who could assess the patients, compare their blood pressure on the arm and on the leg, see how bad their condition is, then fast-track them through the system. That is one suggestion from the APPG. Also, appointing multidisciplinary team co-ordinators could greatly assist in keeping track of patients, moving them through the system and reducing the time that consultants have to spend on doing this.
Co-locating services is also vital. For example, if there were ultrasound scanners and access to sonographers in out-patient departments, they could increase the number of out-patients because patients would not have to go back and forth to and from hospital. This would improve the patient journey. Hybrid theatre facilities would allow consultants to do a range of services in the same space, again, without having to duplicate services and the patient having to go backwards and forwards for different appointments.
That brings me nicely on to the fact that, as my noble friend the Minister knows, the Doncaster Royal Infirmary is greatly in need of some investment. The recent announcements of an increase in NHS capital spending are very welcome. Part of the plans would be to help in this important area, so I hope that she might cast a sympathetic eye over the points that I have made.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to and respect for my noble friend Lord Booth for being so honest and brave with us in this Committee about his experience. I know that we all wish him well.
I intend to concentrate on the prevention of cardiovascular illness and the importance of regular physical exercise in the overwhelming majority of cases of CVD; physical exercise is widely considered the most effective preventive measure against CVD. I declare my interests in this subject as a former Minister for Sport and as the chairman of the British Olympic Association in the build-up to, and during, 2012. Also, thanks to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I fortunately succeeded in a campaign to make defibrillators available in every school.
Unless we address prevention with as much urgency as detection and treatment, we will be left lagging behind other countries in a critical area of health policy where we have no excuse not to lead. For, as has been evidenced in multiple randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it is indisputable that exercise reduces the risks of hypertension, cholesterol, BMI values and diabetes, all of which are linked to the development of CVD.
After the first major lockdown of 2020, Sport England commissioned the Sport Industry Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University to assess the social impact and economic importance of sport and physical activity in England. There were two fascinating parts to the research. Part 1 measured the social impact of sport and physical activity, including on physical and mental health, and part 2 measured the economic importance. The results showed that, for every £1 spent on community sport and physical activity in England, an economic and social return on investment of £3.91 is generated. From the point of view of the NHS, the report stated that a huge £9.5 billion was generated through the physical and mental well-being impacts, which included the prevention of 150,000 cases of heart disease and stroke, 900,000 cases of diabetes and 8,500 cases of cancer.
It is important to look at why there are various barriers to achieving activity levels, including motivation, perceived capability and lack of facilities, because the landscape of the UK’s level of physical fitness is bleak and deteriorating. We face high and growing rates of inactivity among both adults and children—both aligned to a growing obesity problem. Although there are tangential positive trends, such as increased gym membership and the rise of digital fitness, a significant proportion of the adult population in England is classified as inactive.
What is worse is the growing representation of health disparities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, pointed out in her excellent speech. It is the relatively well-off who join gyms. It is the independent sector of education that has overwhelmingly provided the best sports facilities for young people. It is the private sports clubs that have been the backbone of UK sport. Therefore, it is no surprise that we face what is known as the Jubilee line of health inequality, where life expectancy decreases as you travel east along the Jubilee line from Westminster to Canning Town, and where approximately one year of life expectancy is lost for every two Jubilee line stops heading east.
Socioeconomic conditions, access to healthcare, environmental factors and the inequalities that arise from a lack of school and local authority sports facilities, along with a lack of a national culture of sport, health and well-being, drive the high level of cardiovascular illness.
Prevention is essential. In Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I are proposing a national school strategy for sport, health and well-being. After all, well-being is in the title of the Bill, yet in this key cornerstone of the Government’s schools policy there is not a single mention of physical education, physical fitness or sport.
A National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing, published by your Lordships’ ad hoc Select Committee in 2021 stated:
“We are concerned about the high levels of inactivity at the grassroots level, particularly among women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, the elderly, and people from less affluent backgrounds … Numerous underwhelming attempts to boost activity rates and improve population-level physical and mental health and wellbeing have not been as successful as hoped … Our overarching recommendation is the need for a new ambitious national plan for sport, health and wellbeing and a new approach within Government to deliver and fund it”.
That is why the committee on which I sat believed that sport should be moved from the DCMS and placed at the centre of the Department of Health and Social Care. There, it should be aligned with health and well-being at the epicentre of government.
Today, we have rightly focused on the gravity of the CVD problem. Yet we are doing nothing to match or exceed the CMO’s physical activity guidelines, which would prevent many cases of CVD. More than a quarter of adults in England, some 11.9 million people, are classified as inactive. A further 5.1 million average 30 to 149 minutes of activity a week. In a country that has prided itself on sport, fitness and well-being over the generations, successive Governments seem blinded into passive acceptance that 17 million adults in this country do not meet the CMO’s basic recommendation for physical activity. What is in some ways worse is that 30% of children do fewer than 30 minutes of exercise a day and a further 22.7% average between 30 minutes and one hour. This means that more than half our children, some 3.9 million, do not meet the CMO’s recommendation.
It is time to act. It is time to elevate the importance of this subject, which was so well introduced by my noble friend Lord Booth.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for securing this debate. I say as an aside to his opening remarks that if the most common British response is, “I feel fine”, the greatest fear any British person has is of asking someone how they feel and actually getting a detailed response.
The significance of CVD is unanswerable. It is responsible for about one-quarter of deaths in this country and is probably the biggest single contributor to premature deaths and to people leaving the workforce early. It plays a key role in the level of economic inactivity in this country. In pure economic terms, different figures have been put about, but the British Heart Foundation calculates the cost to the UK as £29 billion a year.
Beyond the societal and economic impacts, every statistic that we will cite in this debate today represents an individual and an individual family. We are also faced with the major challenge that whereas mortality rates for CVD dipped in 2019, the figures seem to have begun to rise again after having largely been level over the past decade or so. There is a key challenge about how we can start to drive those down. I suspect that all of us will be united about what we are hoping to achieve—a reduction in the incidence, impact and level of deaths—so it is a question not of what, but of how. I will be interested in the Government’s response on a range of issues.
First, the 10-year plan for the NHS is the correct approach to look at this strategically, and I hope that it will lead to more holistic, joined-up approaches and mean that when it comes to budgeting we can look at things much more strategically. However, it has been highlighted by a range of key stakeholders in this field that there is a need for a specific cardiovascular disease plan. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response on how we can balance the specifics of a plan with the more general strategic direction that we are seeking for the NHS. Similarly, we know that emerging technologies can play an important role, from AI to data science. Any information that the Government can give on how specifically they intend to harness those in the fight against cardiovascular disease will be critical.
Secondly, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others, prevention is the critical element to this. For many people who suffer from cardiovascular vascular disease, the first symptom is a major event, a stroke or a heart attack. It is quite often symptomless. Within that context, we know the range of risk factors, from smoking to obesity, alcohol and air pollution. I know that the Government are taking action on some of these fronts but, again, there is a concern, particularly given the figures, that we are starting to get diminishing returns on certain elements of behavioural aspects. It will be critical to say that in educating on the risk factors, we can act as a driver to harness that and make a real difference to people’s lives.
Thirdly, on testing, it is important that, for example, blood pressure tests are expanded and rolled out more. We know that NHS health testing could have a critical role in prevention and diagnostics, yet we see a mixed bag of take-up of those tests. In particular, we know that men can be more prone to cardiovascular diseases and have a higher incidence level but are perhaps more reluctant to go to a doctor to get those tests. This can also apply to a range of ethnic-minority groups such as the black and south Asian communities, who have statistically higher levels of CVD. I would be interested to hear how the Government can ensure that we better target testing and perhaps look at the commissioning of testing, and how we can incentivise primary carers to encourage people much more to do testing.
Fourthly, we need to raise our ambitions beyond simply the mortality rates. For strokes, for example, there is a target of a 25% reduction in deaths. I would like to see—and I ask the Minister whether there is an intention to have—a similar target of 25% in reducing severe disabilities as an impact of strokes. Allied to that is a key role for improving review and rehab facilities to ensure that, once someone has suffered a stroke or a cardiac event, it does not reoccur and we are not left with a far worse situation.
Finally—and this is not unique to CVD—there is the question of how we can have a level of consistency. I have mentioned testing already and the need for greater levels of use of community pharmacies, for instance, for blood testing. For something such as thrombectomy, the rates are very different. If you are in London, their usage is at around 10%; at the other end of the scale, in the east of England, it is about 1%. There is a range of issues around how we can drive greater consistency in treatments in the health service. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing the debate. After listening to his story, I am rather glad that we were able to listen to him today. I have also listened to grieving families, passionate campaigners and dedicated cardiologists, each of them urging us to act more boldly on the issue of sudden cardiac arrest in the young.
Earlier this year, I had the privilege of co-hosting a symposium with the Italian embassy and Ambassador Lambertini. We brought together leading cardiologists and sports scientists from the UK and Italy to share insight, evidence and experience on preventing sudden cardiac death in young people. Tragically, it is not a marginal issue. Every week in the UK, at least 12 young people—children, students and athletes—die from sudden cardiac arrest. That is the equivalent of a full secondary school wiped out every year. What is more disturbing is that 80% of those young people had no prior symptoms. They were seemingly healthy, vibrant and active. Sport can exacerbate hidden conditions, putting young people at three times greater risk, yet 80% of these deaths occur in sleep, which means that defibrillators, while essential, cannot be the whole answer. We must move from crisis response to prevention.
I have campaigned alongside Mark King, who tragically lost his son Oliver at just 12 years old during a swimming lesson at my old school—King David High School in Liverpool. Together we pushed for greater access to defibrillators in schools and public venues, but even more pressing is the need for screening to detect these conditions before they claim a young life. One mother, Hilary Nicholls, shared with me the story of her daughter Clarissa. She was just 20 years old, full of promise, physically active and with no diagnosed heart condition or health issues. Her sudden death from an undiagnosed cardiac condition was devastating. Tragically, her story is not unique, so the case for widened access to ECG screening is clear.
In elite sports such as football and rugby, we have mandatory screening in place, led by UK-devised international ECG protocols. But, beyond elite sport, there is a vacuum. Students, grass-roots athletes and local community clubs are largely left unprotected. Compare that to Italy, which I recently travelled to with Hilary to see the model in action. For over 40 years, it has had a mandatory pre-participation screening programme. Young people must present a certificate before taking part in organised sport or joining a gym, and the result is an 89% reduction in sudden cardiac deaths. While I acknowledge that there are different views across Europe on the rigidity of such systems, the outcome speaks for itself. Italy shows us what can be done when there is political will, public buy-in and healthcare alignment. I also pay tribute to CRY—Cardiac Risk in the Young—and its chief executive, Steven Cox, for the excellent work the charity does in raising awareness. It has been doing so since it was founded by Alison Cox in 1995.
I do not propose a copy/paste solution, but I urge the Government and my noble friend the Minister to act on what we already know. What is needed is modest and actionable: first, more specialist training to interpret ECGs in fit and active young people; secondly, increased local capacity to carry out screenings in schools, universities and community sport—I urge the Minister to meet Hilary to look at some of the remarkable programmes in testing that Clarissa’s friends have put in place at Cambridge University; and, thirdly, greater education around cardiac health, defibrillator use and prevention woven into our schools and clubs.
We must listen to families; we must act on evidence; we must catch the condition before it catches our children. These are preventable deaths. Let us not look back in five years and say that we could and should have done more. Let us act now to save young lives.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, for arranging this Question for Short Debate on cardiovascular disease and for sharing his emotional and personal experience. The statistics about cardiovascular disease paint a stark picture of a health crisis that demands urgent and comprehensive attention. My thanks go to the British Heart Foundation, the Stroke Association, Diabetes UK and the House of Lords Library for excellent briefings.
The facts are that every day in the UK 240 individuals wake up to the catastrophic reality of a stroke. Stroke remains the fourth-leading cause of death in our nation and a primary cause of disability. Every three minutes, a family loses a loved one to cardiovascular disease and CVD causes more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK.
However, nearly nine out of 10 strokes are preventable, often associated with modifiable risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking and physical inactivity. High blood pressure alone is the largest risk factor for stroke, contributing to 50% of all strokes. The number of people living with diabetes, or pre-diabetes, now exceeds 12 million in the UK, equivalent to one in five adults. Their risk of death from CVD is 4.2 times higher than for those without diabetes. Each week, diabetes leads to 812 strokes and 568 heart attacks. It is therefore vital that we optimise the detection and management of high-risk conditions such as high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation and high cholesterol.
As part of that, we need strongly to support the measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to further reduce the prevalence of smoking in this country, as we have done through successful regulatory measures over the past few decades. We need to support the reduction of other modifiable risk factors, including drinking alcohol to excess and obesity. The measures put forward by the House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity, which was chaired by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, need to be given much more respect by the Government than has so far been the case.
The current system for health checks, such as NHS Health Check, has the potential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, but more needs to be done to expand those checks, particularly to those at highest risk, including individuals under 40. It remains alarming that millions of people with diabetes are missing essential health checks annually which are crucial for detecting and preventing serious long-term complications.
Beyond prevention, we need to consider many issues concerning treatment and care. There is still a critical lack of imaging capability for diagnostic testing, all of which delays patients’ access to specialist stroke units and time-sensitive treatments such as thrombectomy.
We need to ensure 24/7 access to acute stroke treatments, including thrombectomy and thrombolysis, through pre-hospital video triage and access to specialist stroke units. We need a dedicated plan to drive action to address CVD and its risk factors. I know that the Government have committed to a 25% reduction in deaths from CVD and stroke by 2035 but, to achieve this, we need steps to reduce disability.
Scientific research and innovation are the basis of progress in this field. The British Heart Foundation, a leader in cardiovascular science, funds more than half of independent cardiovascular research in the UK. It has powered advances that have nearly halved the number of people who die each year from cardiovascular disease. We are in an era of immense scientific opportunity, with revolutionary advances in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics and regenerative medicine. BHF-funded scientists are already using AI to better predict heart attack or stroke risk.
For those who have suffered a stroke, prioritising and investing in rehabilitation, in line with national guidelines, is critical to prevent recurrent strokes, as one in four survivors will experience another one within five years. Every stroke survivor should be offered a six-month post-stroke review to tailor recovery plans. Beyond this, we must continue to inspire the nation to learn CPR and continue to ensure greater provision of public-access defibrillators, as survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are significantly higher in countries where bystander CPR is more prevalent. We must address the basic glaring issues of health inequalities in order to address these problems.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend for securing this important debate and, as other noble Lords have said, for sharing his own experience in a very moving way. It really brought home to us that this is about not just figures or statistics but the human side of this story. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is not a particularly political debate; across the political spectrum, we can agree that we should work as constructively as we can together to try to address these issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, reminded us, cardiovascular disease is the cause of one in four premature deaths in England. More than 6.4 million people suffer from it and it has resulted in 1.6 million disability-adjusted life years. According to the British Heart Foundation—many noble Lords will have read the excellent briefings that we have received from many organisations, to which we are grateful for informing us—this disease may be inherited or it may develop later in life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, said, those in the most deprived 10% of the population are twice as likely to die prematurely from these diseases than those in the least deprived 10% of the population. The highest premature mortality rate is in the north-west region, and men are twice as likely as women to die prematurely from this disease.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, the NHS has identified high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, diabetes, kidney disease, inactivity—to which my noble friend Lord Moynihan referred—and obesity as risk factors. We also know that those at increased risk of developing this disease include people of south Asian and black African and Caribbean backgrounds.
The King’s Fund think tank has estimated that there are 220,000 admissions for coronary heart diseases and 100,000 admissions for stroke a year, costing the NHS an estimated £10 billion and the economy £24 billion, so the human and financial cost are alarming. We must think about how we can work on this together, across the spectrum, to improve our use of resources and to reduce the number of deaths.
As noble Lords discussed, in January 2025 the Select Committee on Health and Social Care considered the NAO’s report, alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, on progress in preventing cardiovascular diseases. Following this, a letter of recommendation was sent to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention on improving data collection on cardiovascular disease.
When we were in government, we set out ambitious plans in the NHS long-term plan to detect and treat people with the risk factors of developing these diseases. This is not party political; any Government would have done that, because it is important. It included the NHS health check and face-to-face check-ups for adults aged between 40 and 74 in England. It was commissioned through local authorities and delivered through GP surgeries, to help spot early signs of heart disease. Indeed, many noble Lords spoke about how we identify and diagnose, as well as how we prevent. We also introduced a digital NHS health check to operate alongside the in-person NHS health check, to reduce the pressures faced by GP surgeries, particularly as more people now are aware of digital technology and are happy using it.
These Benches also welcome the current Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver a renewed drive to tackle the biggest killers—cancer, cardiovascular disease and suicide—while ensuring that people live well for longer. I understand completely that the Government are in their early days, but, unfortunately, we are yet to see action in some of those areas. I admit that we were slightly disappointed that the new Government scrapped the major conditions strategy. I also understand, however, that we are waiting for the 10-year plan, and if these issues are integrated into the 10-year plan, as I hope they will be, that might be a better approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, we should look at these things not in isolation but as part of an overall integrated plan. We would welcome any announcement from the Government on whether and how they would form part of the, I hope, more integrated 10-year plan. Like many other noble Lords, we eagerly await its publication.
I conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. How do the Government plan to improve support for vulnerable communities who are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, including men, those in more deprived areas and people of south Asian and black African or Caribbean backgrounds?
On 18 June, I will host an event with BRITE Box, a wonderful prevention charity that helps families from deprived areas to budget and to cook healthily on a budget, as a family together, to improve their health. I thank the Minister for agreeing to speak at that event. What specific programmes are the department aware of to improve this sort of prevention, including healthy diets and physical activity? How are the Government working with non-state, local community civil society organisations, such as BRITE Box, to make sure that we tackle these issues?
My noble friend Lord Moynihan spoke about the role that physical activity plays in support and prevention. What other specific steps are the Government taking to close the health inequalities of communities in the most deprived areas, especially those faced by some ethnic groups? What progress have the Government made to ensure that those commissioning and delivering health checks are obliged to collect and report on the demographic data so that we can improve the data on age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, so that we can target better?
My noble friend Lord Polak spoke about Cardiac Risk in the Young. I was slightly disappointed that when I wrote to one of the Minister’s colleagues in the department, they declined to meet with Hilary Nicholls, whom I had met to hear her daughter’s story and those of other people. I hope that the Minister and her officials will be able to accept the invitation from my noble friend Lord Polak, so that at least one person from the department can speak to Hilary Nicholls and Cardiac Risk in the Young. I hope that the Minister can confirm that this will be part of the overall 10-year plan.
I understand that I have asked lots of questions and gone over time, as usual in my typically Socratic way, like other noble Lords, but I look forward to the Minister’s answers. If she does not have them now, I know that, thanks to the wonders of technology and her wonderful officials, she will write to us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, on securing such an important debate. I am very grateful to him for doing that on the back of his personal experience. It shines a light and, while I realise that it is difficult, what he has done is worthwhile. Many of us will be affected by cardiovascular disease, either directly or indirectly, which is why we heard the noble Lord’s message so clearly.
As we have all said, too many lives are cut short by CVD. In 2023, an estimated 6.4 million people were living with cardiovascular conditions and almost a third of CVD-related deaths in England occurred among the under-75s, which gives us the scale of the challenge. Over 1 million people report cardiometabolic conditions as being the main or secondary reason for being out of work due to long-term sickness. This is a challenge on so many levels.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Weir, for understanding that this requires a systematic approach across government, which we seek to have. In seeking to build a health and care system that is fit for the future, we are shifting the focus of our NHS from sickness to prevention. That is supported by the investment and direction of the Chancellor’s spending review of just yesterday. It is also why our health mission sets out an ambition to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by a quarter within a decade.
It is important to go straight to the points that have been raised. Many noble Lords rightly raised prevention. As they are aware, around 70% of CVD cases are linked to preventable risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar and smoking, to mention but a few. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about the importance of exercise and I certainly share his view on that. I assure him that we work across government on this and I take his point that this is not particular to my department. We work very closely with the DCMS to ensure a joined-up approach.
I remember hearing the noble Lord’s solution some years ago, I think on the Health and Care Bill. We have not committed to it, but the principles behind what he says are absolutely right. For example, we are working on better health resources, which include free evidence-based apps, websites and other digital tools, which will help people make and sustain improvements to their health. To take one example, I know the popularity of Couch to 5K. We will continue this work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, referred to the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill that is progressing through your Lordships’ House, which will help deliver our ambition for a smoke-free UK. We need to remember that smoking still claims some 80,000 lives every year. It is a cost not just to individuals and their families and communities but of some £3 billion to the economy, yet this is a preventable cause of death. Noble Lords will have heard in yesterday’s spending review that we are investing at least £80 million per year in tobacco cessation programmes and enforcement to support the Bill.
The noble Lord also referred to obesity. There is a wide range of weight management services, from behavioural support in the community to hospital-based specialist services. This year, we will extend the NHS digital weight management programme to people living with obesity and awaiting knee and hip replacement surgery, which picks up on his point about preparation for treatment where necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, expressed disappointment in the Government’s response to the Lords committee report on food and nutrition, which I very much welcomed. I am sorry that he is disappointed, but I have drawn to the attention of his noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that, just this week, following a recent Question in the Chamber, there was a change in the advice given by the department on the use and appropriateness of prepared baby foods, which she was rightly concerned about.
A number of noble Lords talked about the NHS health check. It supports people to manage their risk through referral to weight management or smoking cessation. It is free and aimed at those aged between 40 and 70. It prevents around 500 heart attacks or strokes a year. It is about identifying early.
I absolutely accept the points made by my noble friend Lady Winterton and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—I am particularly interested in this matter—about the National Audit Office report and the Health and Social Care Committee’s inquiry on doing more to extend engagement with and take-up of the check. One of the things is a new development that will be piloted from this summer: a new NHS health check online, which people can complete at home. It will be piloted through the improved NHS app and, specifically, we will be independently evaluating the impact on equalities to inform the development and rollout.
We have also engaged community pharmacy by investing heavily in blood pressure checks. Nearly 3 million checks have been delivered in over 9,000 pharmacies in the past year, and we are also embarking on new trials. So we are looking at ways in which we can engage better and, if I may say so, improve the NHS check as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised the great potential of AI and technology. I can tell him that a considerable announcement on this was made just this week when I was in Cambridge. We are slashing red tape that currently inhibits innovation while protecting patient safety and encouraging innovation—something for which the industry and many others have been calling for some time. We are also getting the regulatory regime in the right place and investing in research, innovation and being up to date. Some years ago, we could not have dreamed of regulating AI but, now, we are absolutely right to look at how we do that. As the noble Lord said, technology and AI are absolutely key.
I turn to the points on inequalities made by the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Winterton. Our approach is called Core20PLUS5 and it is a national approach to support the reduction of healthcare inequalities at both the national and the local system levels. One of the five clinical priorities in that framework is the treatment and management of high blood pressure, which is, of course, a key risk factor for CVD. That is just one of the areas.
Noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Winterton and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked whether we would commit to a CVD action plan. We have already set the ambition. We are committed, as noble Lords are aware, to publishing a 10-year health plan in the not-too-distant future and to delivering that shift from sickness to prevention. In all of that, we are considering policies—along with, of course, our workforce plan, which will be published in the summer on the back of the spending review, as well as all that will follow from that. We are carefully considering the policies, including those that have an impact on people with CVD, as we develop the plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly raised that men may be less likely to come forward to seek advice. We are in the consultation phase of developing a men’s health strategy, to which I hope he will contribute, and part of that is about recognising the point that he made. We are determined to close the gender gap in care. We also know that, among people with CVD, women are less likely than men to achieve target cholesterol levels. That has to change, so we will pursue it.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on his work in this area. I believe he introduced me to Hilary in the House. I heard his request for a meeting, and I will pick that up with the department. While I never like to disappoint him, the position at the moment follows the advice given by the UK National Screening Committee, which concluded that introducing population-level screening for sudden cardiac death in young people would run the risk of causing more harm by misdiagnosing some people and by providing false reassurance to those at risk of sudden cardiac death whose risk may not be picked up by screening tests. However, I am sure we will have the opportunity to pursue this further.
A number of other points were raised, which I will of course review. In closing, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Booth, that I absolutely hear what he said about recognition, diagnosis and issues in aftercare. We will address this through the number of future developments that I referred to and the NHS long-term plan that is already in existence. I hope that he will be less disappointed should he or a loved one have to seek treatment, care or aftercare in the future, and I thank him.
European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to apply to reinstate the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this short debate. I have an interest to declare in that I live in the Isles of Scilly much of the time, to which the only passenger access in the winter is by air. There are a few problems there, which I shall come on to. In my short speech, I shall cover the many safety benefits of EGNOS, the benefits for pilots, the history of it and what happened before and after Brexit. I still see the cancellation of EGNOS at the time of Brexit as a very unwise and, frankly, stupid decision, but I shall come on to that.
I will first introduce what EGNOS is, because it may be that not all noble Lords understand what it is. It is a geostationary navigation overlay service, which enhances the standard GPS signal and provides accuracy, integrity and other improvements. In simple terms, it is a way of being able to land your plane at and take off from a small airport without all the very expensive, but very good, equipment that major airports have around the country and the world. If you do not have EGNOS, you cannot fly. It is not unique; it is used all the way across Europe. I think there are 700 airports using EGNOS-enabled LPV, and in the United States there is a great deal more of it.
Just before Brexit, the UK introduced EGNOS at a handful of airports, including Guernsey, Alderney, Cambridge and others, and many airlines had installed the equipment in planes that would enable it to work. The estimated cost for installation then and, I think, now is about £35 million a year to cover the whole country.
In my many discussions with Ministers—including with some colleagues here—we have always been told that the Civil Aviation Authority was dead against this. It was unsafe, it would not work and it would like to see something else. Last week, I had a very useful meeting with the CAA to hear from the horse’s mouth, if one can call it that, what its view was, which I shall try to summarise. It is a technical necessity, not a political concession. All it needs, I am told, for us to rejoin is a service agreement with the European Commission.
During those discussions, we had many chats about alternatives. Ministers in the previous Government said that we ought to go for something else: a sovereign UK satellite-based augmentation system, or SBAS. We went to see it, and the only problem was that it would require a £1 billion investment over 10 years—assuming that the Government would commit to 10 years’ funding, which is probably rather unlikely—and the operational costs would be even higher than EGNOS. Many people have asked why we should introduce a new system when we can get the whole EGNOS system for £30 million, which is one-third or more of the price of the other one. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. Maybe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested in that after her announcements yesterday.
To summarise the benefits, it is not just a “nice to have”; it is an essential safety and commercial add-on to safe flying. I fly as a passenger to the Isles of Scilly. Other noble Lords have much more experience in this. It is quite clear from talking to many pilots that they cannot fly in unpredictable weather because they cannot navigate properly. There are regional airports on coasts in many places, but if you cannot land and take off safely, your businesses are not going to enjoy it very much. Then we have to think about local communities. We have air ambulances around many parts of the country, including Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and I know of many cases where they have not been able to fly because there has been no EGNOS. All in all, there are really good reasons for reinstating it.
I shall try to summarise where I think the CAA has got to, which was extremely helpful. It said that it is working closely with the Department for Transport and the UK Space Agency on the operational benefits, airspace modernisation, resilience and future readiness. Basically, from a regulatory point of view, it ticks all the boxes. We all know how good the CAA is at organising safe flights and everything.
It really surprised me that, although it had done all this work in the last two or three years—the reports are available on the website—at the end of 2024 it will hand over responsibility for the next phase of the SBAS initiative, which is EGNOS, from the Department for Transport to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the UK Space Agency. It is jolly nice to have the Minister from the Department for Transport here answering questions, but is that the right department?
I have put down several Written Questions in the last few months, and they were all answered by my noble friend Lord Vallance of Balham. It is worth reading one out: what is the cost of reinstating our membership of EGNOS? The response from my noble friend was:
“The Government is considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system, following our withdrawal from the EU’s European Geostationary Navigation Overlay (EGNOS) system. This work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made. The Government engages with the European Commission and European Space Agency on space programmes but has not specifically discussed access to EGNOS”.
My question to the Minister is: why have they not discussed this and when will they? People are just sitting there while businesses and transport are suffering. We just seem to be getting nowhere.
A very interesting comment came from one of my colleagues in the other place, the Labour MP Stella Creasy. She said that it made no sense to separate the EU and the UK from an aviation perspective. She is right because, if you look at a map of the different aviation systems around the world—there are all kinds—one for just the UK would very much be the smallest.
Are we prepared to sign agreements of 12 years for fish and four years for produce, just taking EU rules without any challenge? Why do not we not sign one for aviation? I do not know whether it would be for four years or 10, but I suspect that it would be much longer, because once people have got used to having EGNOS again, they would struggle to change it.
I hope that, when my noble friend responds, he will say that we are about to start proper negotiations on EGNOS with the European Commission and other agencies in order to produce a service agreement. A service agreement is not a political agreement; it would get us back into the fold and help a large number of people who rely on short-haul or small planes to get around their business in a very sensible way, with minimal delays. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I always feel that I learn things by participating in debates with him and following him in debates, but I am also grateful to him for raising this interesting issue.
I wanted to participate in this debate not because I profess to any expertise in aviation matters—I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower in that respect—but because I want to explore the relationship between programmes in which the United Kingdom has participated in the past and those in which it may wish to participate in the future. EGNOS is not the only one of those; there is also, for example, Galileo, which is distinct from the Copernicus project that we rejoined two years ago.
I have an interest as a member, this year, of the UK Engagement with Space Select Committee. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is also a member. However, I emphasise that any view I express is entirely my own and not that of the committee.
In our discussions, one of the questions we are trying to devil away at is whether some of these programmes are accessible to the United Kingdom if we wish to join them. There are two parts to that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says that he thinks we probably do wish to and there is a benefit in doing so. My question is different: is it accessible to us if we want to join? He may say it is a service agreement, but, from the European Commission’s point of view, it may be a political decision, and there are difficulties that may be associated with that. I suppose that part of the issue that I want to explore with the Minister is whether the circumstances and the political circumstances have sufficiently changed that it may now be accessible to us and we should therefore have exactly the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has initiated—and, I would say, about not only that but Galileo.
I will not dwell on Galileo, but EGNOS is a good example. We were involved at the outset. National Air Traffic Services was one of the co-funders of the original design scheme through the European Space Agency. The whole point is that, once it was all set up, it was then operationally transferred to the European Commission. Where it stands at the moment is that, as far as I can see, it is funded and operated by the European Union, so it is not available to us through the European Space Agency. We are members of the European Space Agency and ESA programmes are entirely available to us, but this is not, in that sense, available to us in the same way as the ESA programmes are.
I hesitate, because I know the Minister replies for the Government, and this will definitely be the Space Minister bit, as it were, which is in DSIT, but there is definitely a question here that I want to put. Insofar as EGNOS is a good example, we may have a valid use for it, and there may be alternatives. EGNOS is not fully developed, as I understand it, for all the civil aviation purposes for which it might be developed. There are other issues; for example, the extent to which we could use it with other satellite-based augmentation systems, because it is interoperable with them. We could perhaps use others, although I do not think the coverage in Europe is available for those. We have the two ground stations, as it were, in Swanwick and Glasgow, so we are in this system; the question is whether we can use it. Really, the question is this: it accessible to us? If I can, I attach to this, although it is not EGNOS itself, the question to the Minister of whether Galileo is accessible to us.
From my point of view and, I suspect, the Government’s point of view, there is a bigger issue: GPS. We have access to it and, for military purposes, have access to the military codes for it. None the less, GPS is one system for position, navigation and timing. As I know from a visit I made to NATO headquarters last week and discussions I had, there is always a question of whether there is a genuine security requirement for backup systems, and Europe might see a benefit in having the development of Galileo as a backup system to GPS. Galileo has certain technical advantages, and GPS has certain advantages from the resilience point of view, so there is a trade-off; it is not obvious that we would want to be in Galileo. I am just using this debate, if I may, to ask that question: if we want, now, in changed political circumstances, to examine the practical case for these two programmes—Galileo and EGNOS—and can see that there may be potential advantages in access to these systems, would they be accessible to us? I do not think they form an obvious part of an industrial strategy for space, since the Galileo contracts have pretty much already been given, and I do not see that there is likely to be any chance of any of the EGNOS operational activity being additionally undertaken in this country: it all seems to be in the hands of a French company in Toulouse—which, for those people involved in space matters, is not surprising.
If I may, my question to the Minister is this: are these programmes accessible to us if, taking the well-argued points by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we wished to join them?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and learn of his interest in satellites. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for—and, indeed, congratulate him on—gaining time for this debate, as well as for his relentless work in pursuing the issue of EGNOS. I declare my interests as the vice-president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK and as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation; I am an aviator and have particular interest in this matter. Much of what I want to say has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I hope to add some detail to it. I come to this from a general aviation perspective.
The European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service, commonly referred to as EGNOS, is designed to improve the integrity and precision of GPS services. To give it its correct title, it is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service. Those three words—safety of life—are particularly important and significant. In the world of aviation, EGNOS enables users of GPS services to be confident that the information being supplied to them is accurate and precise. It is used when operating into airfields in inclement weather conditions; examples of this include when descending through cloud, foggy or misty conditions. Descending through cloud and relying on the EGNOS system allows the aircraft and the pilot to arrive blindly but safely at the end of the runway. This is of use not only to aviation but to the maritime sector, in avoiding obstacles or perhaps entering a port in fogged-out conditions.
Sadly, as a result of our exiting the European Union, the UK’s participation in the EGNOS programme ended on 25 June 2021. Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that the UK contributed to the Galileo satellite system, this led to a withdrawal of legal indemnity for the use of EGNOS; it therefore cannot be safely and fully utilised by aircraft any longer. Although the signal remains in place, reliance on it that might end in an accident would undoubtedly invalidate the aircraft’s insurance. The upshot of this is that UK aircraft operators cannot use EGNOS Safety of Life any longer; of course, this extends to all other users, such as agriculture, surveying and maritime, but it particularly affects aviation, which has additional inherent risks.
Perhaps it would be helpful at this point for me to explain that large airports have a sophisticated and expensive-to-maintain instrument landing system, commonly referred to as ILS. This uses two directional radio signals: the localiser, which provides horizontal guidance, and the glideslope, which provides vertical guidance. These signals are ground-generated by radio signals or, in some cases, microwave signals. EGNOS, on the other hand, is Europe’s regional satellite-based augmentation system. It is used primarily by smaller airports as it can be utilised at a vastly reduced cost; the onboard aircraft equipment necessary for its operation is, in the grand scheme of things, relatively cheap to install and operate.
The Brexit negotiations removed Britain’s access to EGNOS, not because of technical necessity but because EGNOS is managed under EU governance structures. Post Brexit, Britain became a third country. Unless specific agreements were made, access ceased. Maintaining EGNOS access would have required around £30 million to £35 million a year—trivial compared to the economic damage of degraded aviation connectivity—but we did not retain access.
In 2022, the APPG for Aviation commissioned a report arguing for the reinstatement of the EGNOS system. An excellent report by Oxera in Oxford also convincingly argued the case for continuing the service; I thoroughly recommend its reading to the Minister. Oxera argues the case for EGNOS for several reasons. First, it enables precision farming, which improves the efficiency of field working, fertiliser and pesticide use; this leads to higher crop yields and lower costs. Secondly, it improves safety and efficiency in the maritime sector, supporting UK trade. Thirdly, it provides greater resilience at airports when, for example, ground systems fail. Fourthly, it provides more reliable services, including aviation approaches, to the Scottish islands and the Isles of Scilly, where there is no other option but to travel by air in winter.
There is also improved flight safety—EGNOS reduces controlled flight into terrain, one of the CAA’s “significant seven” risks, by a factor of four to eight—and improved reliability of search and rescue and helicopter emergency services. EGNOS enables point-to-point technology, allowing helicopters to operate in poor weather. The CAA has stated that a number of HEMS and SAR operations have experienced accidents and incidents due to poor visibility, and EGNOS was required to reduce these risks. There is also improved access to essential services; with EGNOS, those living on UK islands with poorer access to NHS hospitals will miss fewer appointments every year, which tend to be for urgent treatment or diagnosis. The case for EGNOS is overwhelming.
I understand that the current position of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is that the Government are considering options for UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system following its withdrawal from EGNOS and that
“work is ongoing and no decision has yet been made”.
That is to be applauded, but meanwhile this life-saving facility has ceased to function and places those who rely on it at risk—all for the sake of a sum of money, which, in the grand scheme of things, is peanuts when compared to the lives at stake. Does the Minister agree that development of a new system will be years in the making and that, as an interim measure, access to EGNOS would be a positive and sensible way forward? What of the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK’s aviation regulator, whose core work revolves around safety? What representations has his department had from it on the potential dangers to aviation due to the disappearance of EGNOS?
Martin Robinson, the chief executive officer of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association UK said in a recent article:
“Britain’s aviation future depends on confronting political vanity and embracing real-world cooperation … Restoring access to EGNOS is not just an operational necessity. It is a test of leadership. We rejoined European programmes such as Horizon 2020 … because it was the right thing to do without any political concerns. So why not EGNOS”.
We must act now to restore what is an essential life-saving service to the many sectors that it previously served, in particular aviation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling this debate and for his comprehensive overview of the service, the issues and the need for this service.
Before today’s Question for Short Debate and my preparation for it, I was not aware of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service known as EGNOS and the important pan-Europe service it provides as a satellite enhancement navigation system that augments global satellite systems, helping to improve accuracy. As we have heard, it can help enable planes to land in a broader range of circumstances, helping to improve services and reliability. I am sure this will not be the first time I learn something new in my spokesperson role in this place.
EGNOS is a crucial system for safety-critical manoeuvres, such as navigating ships through narrow channels or flying aircraft, particularly for regional airports. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for clarifying that its full title is the EGNOS Safety of Life Service and for the details he has provided on its use.
Last November, when discussing an SI, my noble friend Lady Randerson requested an update on membership of EGNOS, highlighting that smaller airports such as those in Bournemouth and the Isles of Scilly, as we have heard today, are at a disadvantage because they have been unable to operate safely in poor visibility. Leaving EGNOS has been a costly decision for the aviation industry, including causing issues with training for commercial pilots.
Who knew that yet another consequence of leaving the European Union would be that the UK is no longer part of EGNOS? I have to put on record that Brexit has been an absolute disaster in every single way for our country. This is yet another service that we have removed ourselves from, pointlessly in my opinion and with implications for safety, just for a political headline.
Throughout my decades in public life, I have supported innovation where it is needed, but I also strongly support the principle that we do not need to reinvent the wheel and that partnership working is always the best way forward. This is a great example of that. Why should we not be part of this safety-critical system working with our European neighbours? Why would we look to spend money and time creating our own bespoke system at a cost, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, of at least £1 billion just to set it up? It makes no sense.
I will ask the Minister questions similar to those asked by other colleagues. Has rejoining EGNOS featured in any of the discussions about the UK’s future relationship with the EU? The past year has been an important reset moment in our relationship with the EU. I hope it is on the table and is accessible to us, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked. If it is not, why not? When will this be on the table? Surely, as we have heard today, this is not controversial. It is a system that we were once part of that helps to improve the accuracy of maritime and aviation navigation. Surely it is an obvious scheme to rejoin. Liberal Democrats strongly believe in scientific collaboration between the UK and the EU, on which I hope this Government would agree. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this important debate on the Government’s plans to reinstate the UK’s membership of EGNOS. We are committed to, and will work with the Government on, upholding the best safety standards for aircraft, pilots and passengers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, EGNOS uses a set of geostationary satellites and a network of ground stations to increase the accuracy of GPS. These signals are acquired by ground stations deployed around Europe and are gathered and processed through a central computing system. It is at this stage that differential corrections and integrity messages are calculated and broadcast back to users across Europe via a set of three geostationary satellites. We recognise that EGNOS improves the accuracy of global navigation satellite systems’ positioning information while also providing a crucial integrity message that allows users to get an extremely reliable guarantee on its residual positioning errors, both horizontally and vertically.
As my noble friend said, we have been made aware of the strong opinion of the head of the UK branch of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association about the importance of the UK remaining part of EGNOS to improve safety and resilience for pilots and passengers in the UK. While there is no doubt about the accuracy benefits of EGNOS and its safety-critical functions, it is essential to determine whether the benefits can justify the funding requests made by the European Union. In government, we sought to continue access to EGNOS services through the UK-EU trade negotiations but did not reach an agreement due to significant financial demands from the EU to secure services. The cost to taxpayers would have been £30 million per annum, a cost that the Government at that time could not justify.
While no decision was made to rejoin the EGNOS programme, we recognised that steps needed to be taken on satellite augmentation. This can be demonstrated through a commitment made in DSIT’s government policy framework for greater position, navigation and timing resilience to a UK precise point positioning satellite-based augmentation system and projects carried out in 2024 that defined a future system and architecture options and trials.
While the current Government have been conducting a wide range of negotiations with the EU, no decisions or details have been set out regarding the UK rejoining EGNOS. The Government recognise the importance of PNT technologies for the UK’s security and prosperity and are implementing the government policy framework for greater PNT resilience.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, following discussions with the EU, do the Government have an updated figure for the cost of the UK rejoining EGNOS? Given the financial cost of rejoining it, have they discussed with the aviation sector whether it could cover this cost? With moves towards more sustainable aviation routes, do the Government recognise that EGNOS could improve fuel economy and landing and take-off in the aviation sector? Finally, can the Minister confirm whether the benefits of EGNOS could also be used to improve the integrity of location and the efficiency of our rail sector? I look forward greatly to his response.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. This has been an important discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I was not aware of EGNOS until recently. I am afraid that I have also concluded that it is imperative to use acronyms in this speech because I cannot spell it out every time over 12 minutes, which is a shame. The topic has been amply explained by noble Lords and I do not need to explain it again. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for setting out the history of EGNOS, with which I concur. It understandably attracts interest, particularly from the aviation sector and those with an interest in its future success.
I begin by reaffirming this Government’s unwavering commitment to maintaining a safe, modern and innovative aviation system. I welcome the noble Earl’s endorsement of those principles, too. In answer to the question of why this department is here and why I am speaking, the Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That goes much wider than EGNOS and aviation, impacting all parts of our lives. DSIT is leading on this wider work with the Government’s framework for greater PNT resilience, but my department is working across government to understand the requirements for transport.
We recognise the value the sector places on services such as EGNOS in supporting aviation safety and reliability, particularly during difficult weather and at smaller aerodromes. Since the UK’s withdrawal from the programme as a result of leaving the EU, as noble Lords have heard, flights have continued to operate safely with no degradation in our overall safety regime. We are carefully examining all available options for supporting the continued operation of safe and reliable flights, which could well include membership of EGNOS. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is right: we are talking to the European Union and a better relationship will enable us to participate if we choose to. That answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about whether we could join if we so wished, but it depends on whether we choose to or not. He also made a point about Galileo, which I am not equipped to answer, but I will speak to my noble friend the Technology Minister so that he can have an answer in due course.
It is critical that any solution is based on clear operational needs and a strong value-for-money case for both users and taxpayers. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that, if the previous Government had considered paying for the system, they could have done so during their time in office. This Government are continuing this work and we will continue to work closely with industry experts and stakeholders to find the most effective and sustainable solution. If noble Lords have further evidence to contribute to a value-for-money case, my department will be pleased to hear it. I note the suggestion from the noble Earl that we should ask the aviation industry whether it would be prepared to contribute to the costs of joining.
On safety, we must be clear that we have a highly robust safety regime in place in the UK supported by navigation aids and procedures that remain fully compliant with international safety. The Civil Aviation Authority continues to ensure that all procedures are managed appropriately. We recognise that EGNOS or a similar SBAS could have operational benefits for small, regional and general aviation airports. It would provide greater resilience in poor weather and support access but, as the noble Lord Davies, said, ILS is used at larger airports which are not affected and this would not be useful to them.
The Government appreciate the frustration of those facing delays and disruptions to their flights from poor weather as well as the importance of reliable connections, especially for those living in more remote areas of the United Kingdom. Since I took office, I have heard several times from my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the needs of residents of and visitors to the Isles of Scilly, and I respect his continuing advocacy on their behalf. The Government are already taking important steps to support the connectivity of communities, and we are continuing to look closely at this issue to see what more can be done.
It is also important to be clear that emergency medical and search-and-rescue operations have continued safely and effectively since our withdrawal from EGNOS. These services have access to a range of procedures and capabilities, such as point-in-space approaches, which greatly assist in increasing the utility of air ambulances and helicopters in poor visibility conditions. SBAS services, such as EGNOS, are not currently widely used across Europe to support operational capabilities. We are determined to ensure that the UK’s aviation safety regime remains world-leading, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the United Kingdom. This work is continuing, and no decision has been made.
It is clear that noble Lords who have contributed today, and others, deeply care about having an SBAS such as EGNOS, and we fully recognise that it can have benefits. However, it is also important that every penny of taxpayers’ money, particularly in a time of tight finances, is spent responsibly, efficiently and wisely and that any decision made represents value for both users and taxpayers. We are continuing to consider what an effective, impactful and deliverable solution that works for the UK could look like, and no decision has been made.
The Government recognise the importance of positioning, navigation and timing technologies for our security and prosperity. That is why we are implementing the policy framework for greater PNT resilience and developing proposals for a national timing centre and enhanced long-range navigation systems. The work around UK access to a satellite-based augmentation system is an important part of that, which is why we are continuing to consider the best option for the UK’s specific requirements.
I turn to the future of flight because there are constant developments in emerging technologies—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before the Minister moves on to another subject, given the particular circumstances in Scotland, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to, and the many islands, if the Scottish Government wished to make a service agreement with the European Union for this purpose, but the United Kingdom Government had chosen not to, do they have any scope to do so?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Rather than filibustering for a few minutes while I refer to the knowledgeable officials behind me, I think I had better write to him about that. I can see an answer coming: it says, “Not sure. We’d need to check”. That is very wise.
I turn to the constant developments in technologies, particularly in drones and uncrewed aircraft. This is an important, evolving area, and the full range of requirements are still being mapped out. There may well be applications where SBAS and EGNOS could be useful. As the Government have ambitious plans for the UK to be a global leader in creating a future-of-flight ecosystem fit for the future, ensuring that we can fully realise the social and economic benefits of new and emerging aviation technologies, we must continue to think about this work. It could be said that I am saying that we are just not doing anything, but we are doing something. These rapid developments, particularly in drones used beyond the line of sight, may well provide an increasing case for this technology and for EGNOS in future.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has given us a very interesting progress report on any discussions taking place with the European Union, the CAA and others, but no decisions have been made. Can he give us any estimate about when the next decision might be achieved?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is a good question because developments in drones, particularly drones beyond line of sight, uncrewed aircraft and flying taxis have been much in the news recently. There are many applications way beyond traditional air applications. There is activity for drones beyond line of sight not only on the railway but in better policing. Those things would affect a judgment about an investment in this and whether the continuing cost of it is worth investing in. I urge my noble friend not to ask us to be too peremptory in making a once-and-for-all decision when technology is changing as, because of that, the justification for doing this might increase and we might get to the answer that my noble friend wants.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which reflect the strong interest in maintaining the UK’s continued leadership in aviation safety and innovation. We remain committed to ensuring safety and efficiency. We recognise the real value of systems such as EGNOS, but we must also consider the financial implications and seek solutions that offer the best value for money.
On the contributions of noble Lords about the cost of it, or the cost when it was around £35 million—I cannot confirm whether that might be the current cost or not—if the previous Government could not justify it, in these difficult financial circumstances we have a duty to justify public expenditure. However, noble Lords will have heard me say that we are considering it not only for the benefits from EGNOS for the purposes described in the discussion today but because the future of drone and uncrewed aircraft technology is rapidly developing. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we are strongly considering it. I am grateful for all that they have said.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but what representation has the department had from the CAA on this issue?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The department is in constant discussion with the CAA on this issue. I do not have any evidence that the CAA believes that reimplementing EGNOS is a matter of the greatest concern, but as the noble Lord asked the question, I will go away, find out what the current position with the CAA is and write to him about it.
Craft Industry: Support
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freyberg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the craft industry.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the Government’s role in supporting the craft industry, a sector that combines our economy, heritage, identity and national well-being. In speaking today, I declare my interests as an artist member of DACS and a former craft practitioner, having studied ceramics at Camberwell College of Arts—a course that, regrettably, no longer exists, exemplifying the very crisis that I wish to address today.
I thank Patricia Lovett, who has worked tirelessly to raise the profile of craft in Parliament as the secretariat for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft, for this and her briefing, and those from the Church of England and the UK jewellery, silverware and allied crafts sector. I thank the Minister for meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me earlier this year to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing the craft industry. Lastly, I extend my gratitude to all noble Lords participating in today’s debate; I eagerly await their contributions.
Craft is not an indulgence. It is profoundly human, combining creativity, skill and joy in ways that connect us to our heritage and each other. It is an economic force, a skills engine, a bridge to education, a custodian of cultural heritage and a foundation for innovation. Yet, despite all this, it remains routinely overlooked in national policy.
Let us begin with scale. In England alone, craft contributes £4.4 billion in gross value added, which is more than the fishing industry and on par with sectors such as electrical goods and sports, recreation and amusements. Approximately 210,000 people are employed in heritage crafts, which is more than in clothing manufacturing. However, reliable and up-to-date statistics remain difficult to obtain. I hope the Minister will commit to publishing new figures to help address the current lack of accurate data, as highlighted in How Do we Measure Craft?, published by the Crafts Council in 2023.
However, economic value tells only part of the story. Numerous creative industries and heritage sectors are rooted in traditional craft practices. Fields such as textiles, ceramics, jewellery, glass, leather, woodworking and metalworking—and a host of other overlooked and unsung heritage crafts that I wish I could single out individually today—demand skills that are not only materially productive but rich in cultural expression.
Craft is also deeply interwoven with wider policy goals. It improves health and well-being, supports education and skills, anchors regional identities, and drives tourism, exports and diplomacy. In short, it sits at the intersection of industrial strategy, education, heritage and soft power.
Yet this vital sector faces an existential threat. According to the latest Red List of Endangered Crafts, 165 crafts are at risk: 94 are endangered and 71 are critically endangered. These include scientific glassblowing—which is essential to advanced research—and the production of encaustic tiles, as found in the Peers’ Lobby.
We are witnessing the transition of traditional skills from viable to critically endangered status, often more swiftly than our support systems can respond. Most of these skills are passed down through person-to-person training. They are not widely taught in schools, nor can they be meaningfully learned online. Once lost, they are lost forever.
We see this decline in real time. Newark College has suspended its musical instruments degrees, the only full-time courses of their kind in the UK. In Stoke-on-Trent, three pottery firms have closed recently, including Moorcroft, founded in 1897. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect systemic fragility. Historical craft is a high-value, low-visibility sector, dominated by micro-businesses and sole traders, with limited structural support.
So what could the Government do to turn this around? First, we need urgently to review how government skills policy works for crafts. The current apprenticeship model is fundamentally unworkable for most craft businesses, which are often sole traders or firms with only one or two employees. They cannot meet the requirement for 10 employers to form a trailblazer group, nor can they afford to reduce productivity in order to train an apprentice while still paying their wages.
We welcome the new growth and skills levy, as well as the introduction of shorter and modular apprenticeships under Labour’s post-16 strategy, but we need these reforms to extend to the craft sector specifically, with direct funding for trainers, contributions to apprentice salaries and a reduction in administrative burdens. The new Skills England body has a clear remit to map skills pipelines across sectors. It must treat crafts as part of the creative economy, not an afterthought. Following yesterday’s spending review, how much of the new investment money for skills and training will be allocated to the crafts industry?
Secondly, we must reverse the collapse of full-time craft training. There are now only two single-honours ceramics degrees left. Courses in bookbinding, horology and instrument making are disappearing. The result is that only the independently wealthy can afford to train. We need targeted funding for FE and HE courses, particularly those teaching endangered skills. Many such courses currently fail to qualify for public funding. As with the performing arts, crafts education should not be confined to the privileged.
Thirdly, the Government should move swiftly to deliver on their obligations under the UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage, which the UK ratified in 2024. Traditional craftsmanship is one of its five domains. Ratifying states must identify, inventory and safeguard such practices, yet no safe-guarding timetable or funding has been published. If we delay too long, the damage will be irreversible; I hope that the Minister can provide an update.
Fourthly, crafts should be treated like other sectors of similar size. Fishing, for example, receives tax breaks worth up to £180 million and has a £27 million seafood scheme, as well as a new £360 million coastal growth fund. Craft, which contributes over five times the GVA of fishing, receives no comparable support. Would it be too much to ask to invest even 2% of that into preserving craft skills? A £10 million annual fund could transform training, stem skill loss, and generate lasting cultural and economic returns.
Fifthly, post-Brexit trade obstacles have significantly impacted makers. Couriers are unwilling to accept small shipments. Export guidance lacks consistency. Items are being held up at customs. Organisers in the EU are becoming more hesitant to accept entries from the UK. We urgently need a dedicated help desk—a single point of contact for craft micro-businesses to access accurate trade advice. Trade agreements ought to incorporate cultural exemptions for crafts, recognising their importance in both diplomacy and commerce.
Sixthly, crafts deserve a place in creative education. They are too often excluded from discussions about arts in schools, yet crafts improve cognition, motor skills, resilience and mental health. They also open vocational pathways for students who may not thrive academically. Let us ensure that creative education includes making and that schools have the resources to teach it. Again, I hope that the Minister can provide an update on how the spending review will support this.
Seventhly, crafts are not only a domestic concern but an export strength—a soft power asset and a driver of regional growth. Labour’s refreshed creative industries sector plan and its cultural global Britain strategy rightly position culture at the heart of our international offer. Crafts must be at the heart of that strategy. From Stoke-on-Trent ceramics to Sunderland glass, from Leicester’s rattan-weaving to Devon’s thatching, crafts are rooted in place. Small investments in such place-based industries boost local pride, employment and tourism; they also reinforce the UK’s international reputation for excellence and authenticity.
If this debate achieves anything, I hope that it establishes that craft is not marginal or an anachronism. It is a vital, economically significant, socially valuable part of our national fabric. We do not need huge sums to save the sector, but we need a strategy, data and targeted support, and we need them soon because, once these skills disappear, they will not return, and we will have lost not just livelihoods, but irreplaceable strands of our national story. Let us act before that happens.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I do not have his credentials as a maker, but I am vice-chair of the APPG for Craft, and I support all the points he made so admirably and succinctly, particularly his emphasis on the economic impact of the craft sector.
People have been making glass since the Bronze Age. The technique of glassblowing was developed by Syrian craftspeople in the first century BC. Across the Roman Empire, vessels and objects were produced in their thousands for drinking, shipping food, storing oils, mirrors, windows and much more. In other words, these handmade vessels were not only beautiful, but immensely useful. The remarkable Charles Ede gallery recently displayed 60 Roman glass pieces, some of them filled with lovely naturalistic floral displays showing that, although now eminently collectable, they are still useful. They are functional works of art transcending time.
That ancient tradition survives today but, like so many other handmade crafts, it is under threat. In his excellent, comprehensive speech, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, highlighted many of these threats: the higher costs of materials and energy; cuts to creative education in schools and universities, reducing pathways into the sector; limited apprenticeships compared to other skilled trades; and an ageing workforce where older crafts women and men retire without successors. These are among the key reasons for the decline, and I share all the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
There are some inspiring rescue stories. The Financial Times has a great track record of showcasing the sheer range and quality of UK crafts. It highlighted recently how two young artisans are reinvigorating the art of rush-seated chair making, which has been practised in Britain since Anglo-Saxon times. They were able to do this through the commitment and backing of one person—entrepreneur and estate owner, Hugo Burge. Just eight years ago, that ancient craft was under existential threat with the retirement of the last full-time artisan in the country. Fascinated by the craft and well-advised by the Heritage Crafts Association, Burge funded two apprenticeships. The Hugo Burge Foundation continues to fund apprenticeships to secure the future of this endangered craft.
This is far too precarious a way forward for the future of our amazing craft industries. There are a number of barriers faced by skilled makers in relation to apprenticeships, such as the impact on makers’ time, and therefore income, of helping to transfer skills. A more imaginative, flexible and focused approach is needed to ensure that craft skills can continue to flourish, and I hope my noble friend will in her reply offer some hope that this is indeed how she sees the way forward.
The very effective secretary of the APPG for crafts has, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, done sterling work in showcasing many of these crafts and, in particular, demonstrating the economic contribution that they make, yet they remain largely invisible in policy terms. I would not necessarily have expected a specific reference to craft in yesterday’s spending review announcement, but I hope that the Minister will be able today to give us some real confidence that it will figure strongly in subsequent departmental allocations, as well as in the soon-to-be-announced creative industry strategy.
I know my noble friend is passionate about this agenda. She made that clear in her recent meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me, and I hope she will reiterate today her determination to raise the profile of the craft sector and ensure that it fulfils its potential. I hope she will undertake to ensure that the new Skills England body specifically recognises crafts as an integral and invaluable part of the creative economy, our national fabric and our shared heritage.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education.
I will speak about an important and brand-new initiative in heritage crafts: the Wren international centre of excellence at St Paul’s Cathedral. It has been created out of a space at the level of the cathedral’s crypt, which was previously used for storage, and obviously named after Sir Christopher Wren, who is buried nearby. The new centre is a workshop and training space for heritage craft skills. Rebecca Thompson, the director of property at St Paul’s, says that it is hoped to be
“a leadership network to address the national shortage of heritage skills”.
Its first apprenticeships will be shortly advertised—in stone-masonry and carpentry—and those appointed will begin practical work in the summer, with concomitant college courses in September.
From 2005, I came into close contact with the heritage skills required at St Paul’s for, as Knight Principal of the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor, I had the job of supervising the creation of a new chapel there for the knights from an area that had hitherto been used as a depository for office equipment. I was able to prepare the preliminary drawings with the Surveyor of the Fabric and to oversee the necessary work, which obliged me to raise £1 million. It required specialist carpenters, turners, masons, welders, enamellers, silversmiths and bronze workers, and was opened by the late Queen Elizabeth and the late Duke of Edinburgh in 2008.
Innovations of the kind now in train at St Paul’s are very seriously needed. As we have heard, the number of people entering the heritage skills sector is in decline, and in many cathedrals such as St Paul’s, there are teams of conservators and crafts professionals with an ageing demographic, with retirement on the horizon and with the unwelcome likelihood that they will not be replaced.
We of course sit today in a world heritage site, and it will face the huge task of restoration and renewal in the coming few years. This will require a large number of trained heritage crafts professionals. Attractive jobs here will inevitably entice talented people away from other sites, such as cathedrals, exacerbating the shortages of skills that already exist.
In our several debates on restoration and renewal, I have recommended to your Lordships that we have a duty to construct, when R&R details become clearer, a Palace of Westminster scheme to showcase apprenticeship. It should be a subject of contract, between the House authorities and the firms fulfilling the necessary heritage craft tasks here, that they will guarantee to employ and teach apprentices. It is vital that restoration and renewal is not just a consumer of crafts skills but an active source of training for future careers in these important heritage areas.
I have recommended that all apprentices working here, or on associated projects off the site, should be registered with the Westminster apprenticeship scheme and, at the successful completion of their training, receive a special certificate. I have already persuaded the Speaker and the Lord Speaker that they should present them when the occasion arises. We want these young people to be proud of being part of the history of the Palace of Westminster and to come to understand the craft vision of Sir Charles Barry and of Augustus Welby Pugin that underpins it. I commend that initiative to your Lordships.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this debate and for his expertise.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who will speak later, I believe that cathedrals and churches are some of our nation’s most significant and tangible assets, shaping our history and identity, as well as being the beating hearts of our communities. I regret, therefore, that the Government’s decision to curb support for the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme affects our ability to maintain and renew this precious inheritance. I hope this has been recognised in the spending review.
The reality is that the Church of England cares remarkably well for the biggest portfolio of listed buildings in the country thanks to local parish endeavour. That is why the decision to cap support, even for projects that are already contracted, budgeted and otherwise funded, is a real body blow. In my diocese, the impact for Holy Trinity Clapham amounts to £1 million, which puts at risk a programme of works that is already in progress. Another large fabric project has been paused.
Church buildings, as your Lordships may imagine, support a bewildering array of craft skills. Should churches cease to do so, many skills would atrophy. I am thinking of masonry and stone-carving, the intricate textiles of altar frontals, banners and vestments, the ceramics of tiles, painting, stained and engraved glass, and all manner of metalwork in buildings, utensils and liturgical objects, as well as woodwork, both functional and artistic. What would become of the sole remaining bell foundry in England were it not for orders such as that from Holy Trinity Church, Roehampton, in my diocese, for the casting of four bells in 2023? How would the skills needed to repair great organs flourish without the refurbishment of the organ at St John the Divine, Kennington, which is also in the diocese of Southwark? It has a massive local music outreach programme for children, with beneficial social impact. Organ-building is a heritage craft at risk.
Again in my diocese, at All Saints Church in Kingston upon Thames—the place of coronation for West Saxon kings including, in this anniversary year, that of Æthelstan, the first king of all England—there is an ambitious and contemporary textile project depicting seven Anglo-Saxon monarchs. How will contemporary embroidery fare without the commissioning of large and challenging works such as this; or traditional stonemasonry without commissions such as the repair of the tower and wall at St Mary’s Church, Beddington? Indeed, how will any of these skills survive without this activity? Every bishop in every diocese can recite many telling examples. Yet the Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not list bell-founding, organ-building, stone-carving, stained or engraved glasswork, masonry or wood-carving as core craft activities. I ask the Minister to explain this and expand the current list.
In summary, the reduction in the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme announced in January and concerns over its future beyond March will have a direct effect on commissions and contracts awarded to skilled craftspeople and artists. It will inhibit apprenticeships and dampen economic growth. As a final point, I ask the Minister, if only on grounds of economic utility, to please guarantee an expanded future scheme.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of English Heritage. As well as looking after 400 of the nation’s most important heritage sites, we are one of the biggest investors in building conservation and heritage management in the UK, so English Heritage is well placed to observe and comment on the state of the heritage skills world.
I am sorry to say that it is not good news. For stone-masonry, roofing and thatching, joinery and metalwork, the demand for traditional heritage skills greatly outstrips the availability of people with those skills. For specialist interventions on heritage buildings, such as flint-knapping, which involves repairing a built form and which is no longer practised in new buildings, we are literally at the end of the line. There are few or no new entrants and hardly any training opportunities to continue this ancient skill.
Horticulture in historic gardens is a specialist and skilled activity—a heritage skill of its own—but it is also an underpopulated profession. At English Heritage, we are proud to have run the Historic and Botanic Garden Training Programme—a difficult phrase to say; it is better known as heebie-jeebies—with the support of the National Garden Scheme. Over almost 20 years, we have supported more than 300 trainees, who are now employed across the heritage world. The vast majority of our horticulture trainees have gone on to be highly skilled gardeners at some of the most high-profile historic gardens in the UK and abroad. Much of the credit for this goes to our soon-to-retire head gardener, John Watkins, who engineered this remarkable revival.
The most recent addition to our portfolio of historic properties is Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings. This was the first multi-storey iron-framed building in the world and therefore can claim the title of being the grandparent of the skyscraper.
Between 2017 and 2020, Historic England delivered a programme of heritage skills activities supported by the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation. Work placements, site tours and training events were targeted at all levels, from students to industry professionals. We want a similar commitment to heritage skills training in the delivery of all large lottery-funded projects like this one.
But these are examples of best practice; the picture across the country is far too fragmented—much more Jackson Pollock than Picasso. It is difficult for enthusiasts to find entry points for specialist heritage skills. There are few placement opportunities in heritage organisations and very little on-the-job learning. Once the training is completed, pathways to employment are ill-defined and hard to identify. Employment opportunities are often small scale, insecure and poorly paid. Short-term funding means that even large organisations such as English Heritage can no longer permanently employ in-house teams of construction professionals, as was the case many years ago.
In allowing professions such as heritage skills to dwindle and die, we have not just deprived the country of important construction skills and neglected the UK’s great heritage assets; we have also allowed traditions, customs and local communities to disperse and almost casually disappear. In your Lordships’ House, we are assiduous about maintaining our own traditions. We should also have a care for the traditions and communities of people less high profile, but, perhaps over the long run, even more important than us.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Craft. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Freyberg on securing this debate and on his excellent opening speech. I thank Patricia Lovett for her excellent briefing on heritage craft and, indeed, whose expertise in this area informs us all. I thank the Minister for the helpful meeting she had with my noble friend Lord Freyburg, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and me.
I am a fine artist, so my view of craft is that of a close and equally significant next-door neighbour; indeed, there is considerable overlap in our practice. Yet, whereas we have debates and Questions in this House on many of the creative industries—many on music—I cannot remember the last time we had a debate on craft, so this one is especially welcome, since the infrequency of such debates is sadly also indicative of a public perception about craft that is entirely at odds with the reality of the importance of this area, not least financially.
It is worth repeating the statistic that heritage craft alone contributed £4.4 billion GVA to the economy in 2012, which is about five times more than fishing, which contributed £862 million in 2023. Unlike the fishing industry, it receives no funding from government, while contemporary craft, which is funded through the Crafts Council, still receives nothing like the investment that is made in the fishing industry. I do not want to press this comparison too much, not least because some of the ancillary activities connected with fishing, such as net and withy pot making, are themselves crafts. We should be on the same side, but the Government need to think seriously about a more equitable distribution of direct investment, particularly as they rightly identify the creative sector as a growth area. While it is good that, through the spending review, heritage venues will be better supported—perhaps the Minister can say something about that—the overall cuts to DCMS funding are worrying and deeply disturbing.
I will concentrate the remainder of my remarks on the effects of Brexit on the craft sector. That effect is profound. Europe is the most significant trading partner for craft goods. However, Brexit is not behind us: as in all the creative industries, artists and artisans have to live with it daily. Most immediately, it makes us face enormous concerns over paperwork, costs and delays, but the exchange of ideas, tools, materials, teaching and training between the UK and the EU in the craft industry has all but stopped, including the display of work at European craft fairs and exhibitions. The shop window that such exhibitions afford, even when no work is sold, is hugely important in terms of initial cultural engagement as a precursor to trade. Will the Minister look at this?
Will the Minister consider expanding the list of eligible occupations in the creative sector to include heritage craft practitioners? This would enable knowledge exchange for residencies and collaborative projects under the PPE visa. Will she look at the huge challenges faced by journeymen and apprentices in such areas of itinerant work across Europe due to both Brexit and funding, which is either scarce or non-existent due to rigid eligibility criteria tied to fixed business premises?
Finally, I make a plea that the Government reinstate tax-free shopping for tourists, which would benefit both high-end fashion and craft goods. The Centre for Economics and Business Research found that its removal has deterred 2 million tourists a year from visiting the UK and is costing £10.7 billion in lost GDP, with much of that loss, of course, being the EU’s gain.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing it forward. I echo much of what was said by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Southwark and by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, with whom I worked at St Paul’s.
I would like to stress the importance of capacity for long-term funding in order that long-term planning can be undertaken by these fragile groups. I was disappointed that this morning there was no response from the Minister in the Statement on the spending review to indicate that there will be certainty about the future of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme beyond 2026, which is essential for so many churches, parishes and cathedrals, nor a review of the capping system of the VAT application, which once again destroys much of the benefit of knowing that there is funding ahead.
Though I could simply echo some of the comments about the forms of arts and crafts seen in cathedrals, I am not arguing for special treatment for the Church of England as a discrete group that wants to be okay alone. This is about the impact that the Church of England—its parishes, churches and cathedrals—has in the wider community. For example, the masons’ team at St Paul’s Cathedral offered people, many of them from Essex, the opportunity of a career in masonry. They were often the children of people who had a career in masonry at St Paul’s. This sense that there is something ahead of us is a very important part of the investment that cathedrals contribute through their renovation programmes.
My second point is about the use of conservation—both developing conservation skills and the benefit of conservation for others. In two cathedrals, Rochester and Durham, the display of their inheritance is not only of interest to tourists, which I will come back to, but of profound interest and an education to pupils in schools. School visits are one of the most important ways of introducing children to their inheritance. Both Rochester and Durham are places where there are levels of deprivation which can be very destructive for children, until they discover that they are the inheritors of this beautiful history, which is theirs. Cathedrals have an educational and a formational contribution to make to these communities.
My third point is about textiles. When I was at St Paul’s, we were fortunate to be funded, through the generosity of many of the livery companies, to commission textiles. This was not simply for the use of a small group of people worshipping in that building; it put us in touch with Central Saint Martins, which ran a competition for international students to win the prize of commissioning and designing these textiles. As a result of that, a group of local people who were interested in broderie was started, and it continues now. It gives the local community—not necessarily Christians but beyond that confine—an opportunity to identify with something that will create a heritage for the future.
Finally, I turn to music. For children, access to cathedral choirs is one of the most important ways of enlarging their educational experience and giving them intergenerational experience of working with adults in a professional way. It has also been used by the Probation Service as a way of bringing people who are at risk of offending into finding purposeful skills for which they receive applause.
These are all ways in which crafts overflow from the Church into the wider community.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak about the crisis approaching us in building craftsmanship. Here we are, in this temple of British craftsmanship—we are very proud of its history—yet we are in real danger of losing many crafts as the last craftsmen reach the end of their careers without apprentices. On the other side of the equation, we currently have around 923,000 young people not in education, employment or training; that is one in eight 16 to 24 year-olds. These are young people whose potential is being squandered.
You may think that it is a rather unbalanced equation. When you hear “heritage building crafts”, it is easy to think just about the big prestige projects, such as Notre-Dame and the Houses of Parliament, but that is one of the mistakes we have made. We have ended up with specialist crafts all in their own little niches and struggling to be sustainable.
One-fifth of all our housing stock in the UK —5.9 million homes—was built before the First World War, using traditional methods and materials generally different from those used in the past 50 years or so. These all require maintenance from craftsmen, such as the plasterers who know how to work with lime and the carpenters who can fix a sash window frame. Some £28 billion-worth of work is done annually on these buildings. Equally urgently, these houses need retrofitting to higher insulation standards to help us meet net zero, as well as an understanding of how their fabric works. Then there is the conversion of old industrial buildings to new homes to help meet housing needs. There is a continuum of building craft skills, from the needs of the small, everyday houses to those of our most treasured and visited heritage buildings. Overall, the numbers of building craftspeople needed are very large.
Now think about the pipeline needed to feed this—that huge pool of young people who do not want to sit in front of a computer or at a desk, seeing their jobs replaced by AI and uninspired by corporate management structures. How do we match them with the thousands of self-employed building craftspeople, mostly in their 40s or older, who are ready and willing to give one-on-one mentoring—absolute training gold dust—leading to well-paid, satisfying jobs that are ideal for those who want to take pride in being able to see something they did and did well?
Here in the Lords, we know all too well that the hereditary system of jobs being passed from parent to child has pretty much gone. That potentially opens up opportunities more broadly, but we need to provide its replacement. Surveys show that half of young people have never considered a career in trades; nearly 40% said that they were discouraged from them. We need to inspire them with what these careers can be, and we need to make the pathways for them clearer and easier. Hands-on and heritage skills need to be part of all mainstream construction training.
Then there are the individual apprenticeships and small courses sponsored by the Church of England, the King’s Foundation, the parliamentary R&R programme, English Heritage, the traditional craft guilds and so many more. They are all doing their absolute best, but they need to be greater than the sum of their parts. Thankfully, though, there is no shortage of enthusiasm, ideas and—crucially—deep knowledge and understanding of what can be done. We have some really good reports, and so many organisations are ready to help. I thank especially the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Building Crafts College, Cadw, the parliamentary R&R programme and the Natural Stone Industry Training Group for helping me understand the situation.
What we need now is to bring together the vision and knowledge from industry and the Government’s ambitions. I spoke to Marianne Suhr, one of this country’s leading experts in traditional building crafts and the presenter of the BBC programme “Restoration”. There is no one more inspirational. She is absolutely fizzing with ideas, passion, deep experience and knowledge to help. Will the Minister and others in government please meet Marianne and a small group of experts to see how we can turn their great ideas into reality? To borrow the motto of the movement in France that seeks to support its traditional crafts, Les Compagnons du Devoir, be one of those who build the future.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for initiating this debate in such a powerful way; he is a trained craftsman himself and a staunch supporter of craft. I also thank Daniel Carpenter from the Heritage Crafts Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. How sobering it was to receive the latest list of endangered crafts recently.
I also pay tribute to Patricia Lovett, a wonderful calligrapher who has been the driving force behind the All-Party Group on Craft, of which I was a founder member. She has been instrumental in introducing us to a bewitching range of specialists in gold, glass, leather, printing, sewing, neon lighting, clock-making, instrument-making and too many other skills to mention. The meetings always leave us inspired and enriched, which is sadly not something we can say of all meetings in Parliament. As a winder, I regret that four minutes does not permit me to mention all the great contributions to this debate, but I thank all noble Lords.
This country is rich with heritage crafts but, sadly, a number are lost each year as the number of young people coming forward to spend time and trouble on apprenticeships to learn them is not sufficient to ensure their lasting appeal. Often, the practitioners are sole traders or very small businesses, who need financial support if they are to take time from practising their craft and earning a living to teaching it. Why can there not be a dedicated point of reference to help craftspeople through the myriad complications of trading, particularly —as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said—with the EU? It used to be a rich source of customers and colleagues.
We are aware that further education colleges do a great job in supplying teachers and opportunities, but, of course, they are beset by funding limitations. These skills require patience and attention to detail, which was part and parcel of my generation but is often a far cry from modern-day instant results. Setting up each letter in a printing press, having to mind the Ps and Qs, and, indeed, the need to type accurately with a typewriter are processes outwitted by the speed of computing. However, the satisfaction of a job well done is not matched by the speed of automation.
Craft skills and creativity are key to the country’s economy, as we have heard from various noble Lords, but we have lost many of the teachers who encourage the young into practical skills. Many state schools no longer offer woodwork, metalwork, cookery, needlework and pottery, which used to be part of our educational offer and enticed many young people into learning when maths and English were not their forte.
Part of the problem we have with the disturbing number of young people not in education, employment or training—the NEETs—is that their interests and skills were not on the timetable at school, so they lost interest in learning. Among them, there will be many potential craftspeople, who could be encouraged into work if their craft skills were recognised. Can the Minister say whether the curriculum review will recommend that opportunities for craft should be available in all state schools?
There are organisations, enthusiasts and livery companies who work hard to regenerate enthusiasm. In the livery world, we know that goldsmiths, leather-sellers, carpenters and many others promote the crafts on which they were founded, often many centuries ago, but which still have relevance today. We have heard from both right reverend Prelates about the importance of the Church, which has such beautiful buildings and artefacts that are of course made by craftspeople. When we allow this crumbling building to be renovated, we shall need all the skilled craftspeople available. We should not allow ourselves to be outdone by Notre Dame, which was renovated in such amazing time.
Might the Minister look to using the smart fund, a private copy remuneration scheme already modelled in 45 countries including much of Europe, Canada and Mexico, to generate much-needed funding for craft? Why do craft courses not qualify for funding? People often have to self-fund.
We are only too well aware that independent schools continue to encourage crafts as they do art, drama, dance. Surely, however, it should not just be the preserve of the privileged to be able to show talents and learn skills in these subjects. Crafts improve hand-eye co-ordination, enhance mental health and give a great sense of accomplishment when something beautiful or useful is being created. What steps are being taken to reintroduce craft disciplines into state schools so that the country’s proud tradition of excellence can be continued and so that young people are not turned away from learning and can contribute their talents to the economy?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and welcome the Minister to her first debate as Heritage Minister. What a fine debate it has been—long overdue, well attended and very perceptive. I was very proud to be the Minister who ratified the 2003 UNESCO convention on intangible cultural heritage, and I am delighted to see the Minister taking forward that work with great enthusiasm, as her department leads on encouraging people to bring forward crafts and practices to be enrolled in the UK’s new inventory. Perhaps she can give us an update on that work and remind us how people can make a nomination. We all have our favourite examples: today I am wearing the Northumberland tartan tie that I wore with pride as Heritage Minister.
Inscription on the UK’s inventory and with UNESCO are important as a recognition not only of what we value as a nation but of what we stand to lose if we are not careful. Heritage Craft’s latest red list has been mentioned. It now lists 165 distinct crafts as “endangered” or “critically endangered”—19 more than previously. One should catch the attention of our Prime Minister as it is flute making. This work comes at an urgent time.
That is helpful to the Government for so many of the missions that they have set themselves. Whether it is creating economic growth and opportunity across the UK, providing new homes—not just building new ones but retrofitting historic properties, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said—or making us a greener country as we seek to insulate old buildings and protect them from the changing climate, we will need all our skilled craftspeople. As in 1979, this Government could do with more thatchers, so will the Minister use her good office and things such as the cross-government Heritage Council to impress this point on her colleagues in other departments?
Will she press them, notwithstanding the “outright cuts” that her department was handed yesterday, in the words of the IFS, to ensure that heritage crafts are properly supported? As we have heard, at present there is no direct funding for heritage crafts. The Crafts Council receives £2.2 million through the Arts Council, but its focus is on contemporary craft, which is very important but distinct. Surveys such as Mapping Heritage Craft have shown that some 210,000 people are involved in crafts, contributing, as we have heard, £4.4 billion of GVA. Surely some of that can be reinvested to help the sector to grow further and to pass on skills to new generations.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned some of the specialist training we have lost. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and draw attention to the National Glass Centre in Sunderland, so close to the Education Secretary’s constituency, which continues the tradition of glass-making on Wearside.
Many organisations are doing excellent work. We have heard about livery companies. I was delighted to meet some of English Heritage’s brilliant gardeners and apprentices at Belsay Hall with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos.
I am very glad that we have two Lords Spiritual with us today. The Church of England provides apprenticeships and training opportunities, such as the cathedral workshop fellowship. We look forward to the opening of York Minster’s Centre Of Excellence, and we also heard about the Wren International Centre of Excellence from my noble friend Lord Lingfield.
We all share their anxiety about the changes and uncertainty surrounding the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I know that the Minister recently visited one of the properties in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in Rugby and had the opportunity to see for herself how the trust helps to keep specialists, such as Jim Budd, in work repairing stained-glass windows. Last summer, the CCT organised a heritage building skills summer school in Lancaster, helping to spread opportunity to people from a wide range of backgrounds. On a recent trip with the CCT, I was delighted to meet some of the apprentice stonemasons at Gloucester Cathedral, who are caring for that building as their forebears have done for more than a millennium.
As we have heard, we need skilled craftspeople for this very building if we are to look after the UNESCO world heritage site in which we presently sit. That was mentioned at the end of the debate in the Chamber last night, so, as my noble friend Lord Lingfield and others have said, there is an opportunity for us to lead by example.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important debate and all noble Lords on their thoughtful contributions today. Given the time constraint, I, too, will probably need to talk very fast, and I may need to write to noble Lords after the debate with any responses that I cannot cover in my response.
I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, described as the “unsung” crafts have heard their value sung out very loudly today. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, on the restoration and renewal programme, which was echoed by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, shows how relevant this debate is to the Palace of Westminster, as it is around the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, mentioned Notre Dame. I am proud, as I know noble Lords across the Room will be, about the role of British craftspeople involved in that project. It is important to recognise that we gain from what Notre Dame gained from our incredible builders, craftspeople and artists.
Many noble Lords will know from previous conversations I have had with them that I feel passionately about craft, as does every noble Lord who has spoken. That includes not just the traditions woven into our inclusive national story or, in the case of a number of noble Lords, their professional lives, but in my case as a means of rehabilitation from serious illness as a teenager and as activities I learned from my mother, grandmother and great-aunt.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said so powerfully in his opening remarks, craft is not an indulgence. It is profoundly human. When I was growing up, one of our closest family friends was a professional potter, Rosemary Zorza. She had a profound effect on me as a child, encouraging my creativity and imagination. However, beyond my personal experience, when I speak of crafts, I mean more than the physical objects that are represented. I mean the communities sustained, the skills preserved and the futures shaped. The craft industry is a custodian of heritage, a source of enrichment and a powerful driver of growth.
I turn to the point on data. The figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, covers a broader definition than our current DCMS methodology allows. The most recent DCMS figures from 2024 show that in 2023 the crafts subsector generated around £400 million in gross value added and employed 7,000 highly skilled artisans, which is a significant return for the creative industries. These are, on the whole, small but highly specialist enterprises. We continue to work to improve how such sectors are captured in official statistics, including where their work cuts across different categories such as manufacturing, design, heritage or construction skills. As a Minister, I am keen to understand what the data is telling us so that I can represent the sector effectively in discussions.
I want to add that this is not solely about economics, important though they are. This is about artistry, craftsmanship and our living heritage. From Stoke-on-Trent’s ceramics and Birmingham’s jewellery, for which Birmingham was recently recognised as a world craft city, to Northamptonshire’s shoemakers, these crafts are signifiers of place, character and British identity.
All noble Lords highlighted the pressures faced by the craft sector. This is an important debate for those reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, noted that Heritage Crafts’s 2025 red list of endangered crafts highlighted challenges in education, training and small business support. We recognise these challenges, which is why we support funders such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which in 2024 awarded £158,000 to Heritage Crafts for long-term sustainability. It also runs a heritage crafts programme offering bursaries to help people train in heritage crafts or develop their skills. I look forward to meeting the chief executive of Heritage Crafts in the coming weeks to hear more about the issues at stake.
In relation to wider support for the sector, since 2018 Arts Council England’s developing your creative practice programme has supported the development of creative practitioners by providing grants to give them the time, headspace and financial support needed to encourage development and experimentation to enable those practitioners to progress and flourish in their creative careers. Craftspeople specialising in textiles, jewellery or ceramic arts, for example, can apply under the visual artist field.
The spending review was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others. Following the announcement of the spending review on 11 June—yesterday—DCMS is now moving into the business planning phase to determine how the settlement will be delivered.
It is important to recognise that some of the risks to the sector are very tangible and real. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, referred to the closure of potteries. The Government are working closely with Ceramics UK to ensure the future of the sector with regard to both traditional ceramics and 21st-century, high-tech ceramics. I look forward to the publication of the industrial strategy and hope that noble Lords will find it of interest when it is published in due course.
The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Chichester and the Bishop of Southwark noted the changes to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I do not want to suggest that we do not recognise the role that the restoration of churches plays in the preservation of skills. However, given where we were fiscally, we had to make changes to that scheme. On its future, funding after 2026 will be considered as we work through the departmental business planning process. In January, the Government announced a one-year extension with a £23 million budget. I stress that 94% of applications will not be affected by the change, but I appreciate that the affected schemes have to explore other means of funding. I have spoken with the vicar of the church in Clapham mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, and I am aware of the issues that the church has with claiming money under the National Lottery scheme.
As the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned, last year we ratified the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. I recognise the work that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, did on that. He knows that I am as enthusiastic about it as he is, and I am delighted to take his work forward. Ratification has started a timely conversation about what we value and how, collectively, we safeguard our living heritage, of which crafts are a key part. We will create inventories better to map and understand the sector and its issues and to raise awareness. Submissions will open later this year, and I will report to the House about those plans. I am very keen for as many noble Lords as possible to get involved in promoting it in due course.
I now move on to talk about skills and education, and this is where my notes get very messy and I am at desperate risk of running out of time. I think all noble Lords raised skills shortages. This is one of the key areas raised in this debate that I am genuinely most concerned about. I recognise similar concerns to those raised with me by heritage stakeholders across the piece about making sure that we do not lose the skills we need. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe noted that people who are retiring are not being replaced, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised a very powerful point about the barriers of time and finances for young people to get trained by small family businesses or sole traders.
Organisations directly and indirectly supported by the Government are investing in craft skills, including Historic England, the Churches Conservation Trust and projects funded by the National Lottery. I pay tribute to the leadership of my noble friend Lord Lemos in championing craft and heritage skills through his work at English Heritage. Further excellent work is happening to address demands, such as at the National Trust’s Heritage and Rural Skills Centre and York Minster’s Centre of Excellence for Heritage Skills and Estate Management, and the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned the excellent work at Saint Paul’s.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others mentioned that we are reforming apprenticeships, but I recognise that some occupations do not necessarily fit into the very tight framework that some apprenticeships involve. For example, I understand from my noble friend Lady Anderson that it takes up to 10 years to train a master potter. I will pick up these points in writing. I will also pick up the points made in relation to skills, apprenticeships and education with my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, not least in relation to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe on Skills England. I note the point on trade and will respond to the noble Earl in writing.
In the very small amount of time I have left, I conclude by saying that we will continue to support the craft sector. People in this country produce some of the finest crafts in the world. I am clear that we have an incredible richness of craftspeople in this country, and I am seeking to identify ways to ensure that the sector is supported to grow. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for bringing this debate.
Wildfires
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Caithness
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to (1) reduce the risk, and (2) mitigate the effects, of wildfires.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, wildfires are a natural phenomenon and an essential process in some ecosystems. Climate change is driving not only increasingly frequent periods of fire-supportive weather but changes in our vegetation that are probably making it more prone to fire. Wildfires are becoming a persistent and growing risk to life, property and the environment with the impact that they have on carbon emissions, wildlife, humans and their health, insurance, and air and water quality. However, there is no single definition of what constitutes a wildfire, although the National Fire Chiefs Council, the NFCC, has long argued for one. Do the Government agree that a single definition is now a necessity?
By April this year, the total area burned by wildfires in the UK was already higher for the year than any other year’s total over the last decade. As of 4 June, more than 137 square miles—almost the size of the Isle of Wight—had already been burned. It is very hard to put a price on wildfires, but the Moorland Association estimates that the cost this year is already more than £350 million. In addition, as with all fires, there are ongoing legacy costs, which are unquantifiable, such as bare land being eroded and the slowing re-establishment of vegetation and recovery of wildlife at a time when nature is in crisis.
About 90% of wildfires are caused by humans, either carelessly or deliberately. Increasing public awareness of wildfires is a logical next step following the good work of the UK fire danger rating system project and it needs addressing by the Government, local authorities and landowners.
The largest number of wildfire incidents are in major metropolitan areas, with the greatest threat to people, health and livelihoods being the rural-urban interface. Due to wildfires, in July 2022 the London Fire Brigade had its busiest day since World War II, with more than 40 houses and shops destroyed. Wherever fires occur, we are extremely grateful for the courage and dedication of the fire and rescue service—the FRS. A fire can affect many FRS stations. On 10 March this year, a wildfire started deliberately at Canford Heath required the attendance of 13 stations.
This increased operational demand comes when firefighter numbers are down 25% since 2008. The ever-growing costs must be absorbed through core budgets that are already under strain, and there is no dedicated funding for wildfire response. All this, together with a lack of definition, is hindering long-term investment and the prediction, mitigation, control and recording of wildfires and their impact. I ask the Minister: do we really need another major catastrophe before the Government act and the NFCC’s sensible requests are addressed?
I was brought up on the heather hills in Aberdeenshire, so I wish to focus on heath-land and moorland fires, but in England. I have taken part in controlled burns and have helped fight wildfires. I have been fortunate to see and hear the biodiversity that is noticeably abundant on managed, as opposed to unmanaged, moorland.
A key determinant to any fire is the quantity and type of combustible materials available for burning. This influences fire behaviour and severity and is known as fuel load. The NFCC and private landowners agree that, the larger the proportion of the fuel load that is unmanaged, the bigger the fire and the higher the risk of damage. This is the very thing we all wish to prevent; thus, land management is critical. The FRS states that a flame length of over 11 feet puts people at risk—remember that the flame length on Saddleworth Moor was over 50 feet.
Recently, in the Peak District, due to the terrain, weather conditions and flame length, the FRS withdrew from fires and decided to let them burn themselves out. Why are the FRS volunteers and biodiversity being put at risk like this? The answer is that land managers are being directed by the Government through Natural England—NE—to manage land in such a way that it increases the fuel load.
There is a significant difference between a controlled burn and a wildfire. Controlled fire burns only the surface, not the underlying vegetation or root systems. Furthermore, the latest science shows that, over a 10-year period, controlled fires sequester more carbon than they release. NE used approved controlled burning on Dorset heath-land to restore habitat but, ironically, it is firmly against it on moorland, even though it does not burn the peat. Instead, NE demands the wetting of moorland, but wet moors still burn.
Indonesia is the only country in the world that has tried rewetting at scale and studied its effect on wildfire. Rewetting reduced the number of extreme fire events by 40% and only slightly shrank the area affected by fire by 5%. Of course, rewetting will help in some places but certainly not all. For instance, due to topography, 30% of the Peak District cannot be rewetted. The England Peat Action Plan identified the lack of scientific knowledge around the impacts of changing land managing practices. As a result, IDEAL UK FIRE is researching this, with a report due in 2027. Can the Minister tell your Lordships why Defra has undertaken a hurried eight-week consultation on further restrictions on traditional winter burning before this important report is received and studied? Does the Minister agree that no decision should be taken until we have the science available?
NE looks at facts from a single-issue viewpoint, is wedded to one form of fuel load control and ignored the latest scientific evidence. Its ill-informed evidence review—NEER155—has compromised Defra’s responsibility in the wildfire framework for England and, doubtless, the review of the EIP. I wrote to the CEO of NE in April, asking for an urgent meeting to discuss all this. It is a sorry saga to recount but, briefly, she has not responded to me, and my requests for a meeting have been ignored. That is unacceptable, especially from the Government’s advisers.
I conclude that NE is not fit for purpose. I am not at all surprised that there is a fundamental breakdown in trust with landowners to whom it dictates. Its behaviour is putting humans, our environment and nature at greater risk. Can the Minister tell us why NE is allowed to give instructions to landowners when it has no statutory responsibility for wildfires and, contrary to his recent letter to me, does not employ a single person with specialist knowledge? What action will he take to improve NE’s performance?
While on landowners, let us recall that landowners in England voluntarily spend millions each year on moorland management and promoting biodiversity. In parts of Scotland and parts of Italy and Spain, this is no longer so, with well-documented negative environmental consequences. If landowners withdraw their good will, it will fall to the taxpayer to fund and support biodiversity, and the FRS will have no help and local expertise when the fire occurs.
Many of your Lordships will have received the Wildlife Trust’s brief for this debate. Before it was circulated widely, I managed to get an inaccurate reference to an NE report corrected. I also told TWT that where the ignition source was known it represented less than 7% of upland fires. Significantly, it did not amend its brief further to reflect that fact. Are Ministers aware that not only do some NGOs wilfully confuse controlled burns and wildfires but they are sending out briefs that are more emotionally and politically based than science and fact based?
I thank all noble Lords who are speaking in this debate. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Gove, another Aberdeenshire loon, but nae from the hills, and my noble friend Lord Jack of Courance, in whose former constituency I spent many of my farming days. I am delighted that they have chosen to make their maiden speeches in this important debate. Wildfires are a current and very real threat to us and our environment that climate change will only exacerbate. We all need to do more to rise to the challenge, but we need a more concerted lead from the Government based on further and better scientific evidence advice than they have recently received.
Lord Jack of Courance (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a very great honour for me to be standing here today. I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness not only for proposing this debate but for his excellent speech. I agree with every word he said. I also thank my two noble friends who supported me at my introduction, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord McInnes of Kilwinning. To those two noble Lords, the doorkeepers—I am going to do it in reverse order—the Clerk of the Parliaments and, obviously, Black Rod and many others who have given me invaluable assistance and advice, I give my heartfelt thanks.
I think, before I turn to the substance of this debate, it is customary for me to say a few words about my background. I was born and bred in Galloway. I married Ann, a Galloway girl who was my childhood sweetheart, in 1987. We have three grown-up children, all nicely married, and we have three wonderful grandchildren. Between the early 1980s and 2017, I had an entrepreneurial business career, then, through a rush of blood to the head, at a day’s notice, I stood for Dumfries and Galloway, an SNP seat, in the 2017 general election. Five weeks later, I found myself on a train to Euston with a change of career, and I have not regretted a day of it.
On arrival in the Commons, I sat on the Treasury Select Committee, and after that I joined the Whips’ Office. Then in July 2019, I was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, a role I held for five years and 10 reshuffles, which I think may be a record in its own right. Following my five years in the Scotland Office, I have many reflections on intergovernmental relations and the devolution settlement. During that time, I certainly put out a number of political wildfires, many of them started by my noble friend Lord Gove. However, I will return to those reflections at a future date.
Turning to the substance of this debate, as noted in my register of interest, I am the proud owner of some heathland and moorland in south-west Scotland and, consequently, this is a subject very close to my heart, because we all know that when accidental fires break out in areas of moorland with, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, a large fuel burden, the consequences can be devastating for wildlife, biodiversity and the carbon release if that fire gets down into the peatland.
However, it is a common misconception that muirburn is peat burning. It is not. Muirburn is a cold fire. Your Lordships can go online and watch videos of cold fires going across Mars bars that have been laid in the heather and not damaging them or harming them in any shape or form. That is the point. It is a cold burn. These cold fires preserve the peat. They have the dual purpose of preventing wildfires and creating a mosaic of biodiversity that is quite exceptional.
In conclusion, prevention is the best solution to wildfires, and that comes through land management. That means government taking a sensible approach in terms of rules and regulations and not burdening land managers with unnecessary bureaucracy. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to make these observations, and I look forward to playing my part in the work of your Lordships’ House in future.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this important debate. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jack and to congratulate him on an excellent and most informative maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in future. Looking on the internet this morning, I was delighted to see that my noble friend is a former chairman of the River Annan board—another Scottish river on which I have failed miserably to connect with a fish. I declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers’ Union.
In its wildfire rapid response assessment, the United Nations Environment Programme emphasised the importance of auditing full wildfire costs and investing in planning, prevention and recovery—not just response. This is because the costs of wildfire mitigation and prevention are a fraction of those associated with suppression by the emergency services and the economic and environmental impacts of a wildfire. However, no such systematically collected data exists in the UK, and until the direct and indirect costs of wildfires are understood and recorded, their challenge to humanity will be dangerously overlooked.
The costs go far beyond the obvious direct costs of suppression by the fire services. Wildfires impact our health, close roads to traffic, impact schools and businesses, lead to the evacuation of residential areas, damage our infrastructure and homes, impact our water supplies and water quality, and release carbon and pollutants into the atmosphere while destroying crops and killing wildlife. If they occur on peatland, you can add to that list the loss of stored carbon accumulated over millennia.
All these costs are simply not recorded as a matter of course and are therefore not fully accounted for in the decision-making process. Individual assessments exist, such as the £21 million cost of the health impacts from the Saddleworth Moor wildfire of 2018, due to a 300% increase in PM2.5 levels; the £83.5 million insurance payout in 2022 due to farm fires; and the almost £2 million of publicly funded restoration costs lost in the 2018 wildfire on Saddleworth Moor.
By bringing these diffuse sources together, the Moorland Association has estimated that, to date, wildfires have cost the UK more than £350 million in 2025, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said—the same amount of money that the Government committed in 2020 to help heavy industry reduce carbon emissions. These costs are a potential avoided loss if wildfire policy is focused on mitigation through managing the fuel load.
I must point out that moorland management, including controlled and specific moor burn carried out by highly trained and skilled gamekeepers, plays a vital role in the prevention and control of wildfires, as was seriously demonstrated in my area of the Peak District earlier this year. That fact needs to be noted and appreciated by Natural England and others.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted—and surprised—to say that I agreed with a lot of what the noble Earl said in his opening speech. I congratulate him on bringing this topic here. He is absolutely right that wildfires are a natural phenomenon, but the current year is on track to be the worst on record. They used to be a rare occurrence but are becoming much more common. This is due to a combination of factors, including dry and windy weather conditions, abundant vegetation from damp winters, and, of course, the impact of climate change.
The Government need a plan—a strategy. They need practical solutions as well as some answers to practical questions. For example, are the fire services ready and able to deal with wildfires? Do they know the best way of doing it in each circumstance, including the urban/rural divide? Do they have the spare capacity if they need it?
The best way to strengthen our resilience to wildfires is to restore and strengthen our native ecosystems. The problem is that we have some inherent invested practices here in Britain that make it much more difficult to protect our own ecosystems, such as shooting. For example, we have had endless promises about stopping the use of lead bullets. They are highly poisonous and toxic to people, especially if you eat them in pheasants. We have to stop it—and we also have to stop the practice of pheasant shooting altogether. There should be no hunting in Britain; it is a selfish and senseless way of behaving.
For example, the millions of pheasant chicks imported into the UK every year have a detrimental effect on our native ecosystems, wrecking our wildlife as they out-compete native UK birds. Hawks are being shot by gamekeepers, and the chicks of the game birds are put into crowded battery-cage conditions then sent all across the UK to be shot.
It is inherent in our country that people like nature. I know that Labour does not entirely get the concept of nature, but it is important to support and strengthen it. It is obvious that we must act to preserve our peatlands and woodlands without deliberately contributing to their deterioration; the Government must adopt very effective strategies.
I point out that, in this debate of 12 speakers, we have four Earls and only two women; it strikes me that this is quite typical of your Lordships’ House. How we will miss our Earls.
Lord Gove (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to have been chosen to join this House. I am deeply grateful for the support and kindness that I have received since I arrived. In particular, I thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lady Finn. I also thank the staff of the House: Black Rod, Garter King of Arms and, in particular, the staff of the Library and the doorkeepers, who have given me invaluable assistance since I arrived.
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for introducing this debate. Like me, as he referred to earlier, he is a teuchter from Aberdeenshire. He spoke with considerable authority and expertise about a cause close to many of our hearts: making sure that our environment can be preserved and enhanced for future generations.
I come to this House having served an apprenticeship of 19 years in the other place, during which time I spent 13 years as a Minister. I regard this as inadequate preparation for joining this House because, during my time as a Minister, I learned that respect for your Lordships’ House was a precondition of achieving anything in politics. The collective expertise, across party and of no parties, which the House of Lords provides is a huge asset to our constitution; the voices raised and points made in this House undoubtedly enhance the quality of governance that the people of the United Kingdom enjoy.
I am very glad to be speaking in this debate, not just because my noble friend Lord Caithness has devoted time both in government and on the Back Benches to enhancing our environment but because the vital issue of ensuring that we, first, prevent and, secondly, mitigate the impact of wildfires goes to the heart of a series of environmental questions that we face.
In the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Jack, we saw two apparently conflicting but, to my mind, overlapping points. The plea that I would like to make in this speech is a plea for understanding—understanding of the importance of making sure that our peatland and moorland landscapes are protected, but also understanding between what are sometimes seen as warring interests. Whether it is the Moorland Association, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust or the many environmental NGOs that sometimes find themselves disagreeing just a little with one lobby or another, all have a shared interest in making sure that we hand on our environment, in what has become a very nature-depleted nation, in a better state to the next generation. That was my mission during my brief time as Environment Secretary. During my time in this House, I hope to work across parties to ensure that we enhance our natural environment, our built environment and the environment that we leave to the next generation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to welcome the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Gove and Lord Jack of Courance. They have made extremely important contributions to the work of Conservative Governments over the last 10 to 15 years. It was a pleasure to work with my noble friend Lord Gove when I was the Chief Whip and he brought forward an important Education Bill. There is an old saying: once a Whip, always a Whip. Having been Conservative Chief Whip in this House, both in opposition and in government, I can fairly say that I will be very keenly watching my noble friends to see what their contributions to this House will be. I anticipate that they will keep us not only very interested but very well informed.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this short debate. He has made it clear: wildfires can harm people, property, ecosystems and the environment. The timing of his debate is particularly helpful, since it gives us the opportunity to follow up on questions raised in the Chamber a month ago which the Minister was not in a position to answer then. He courteously gave a commitment to follow up on the questions, so I would be grateful if he could assist by responding to two of them today.
His noble friend Lady Ritchie asked whether the Minister had had conversations with the devolved nations and regions about wildfire prevention and mitigation. He committed to conversations with his relevant counterparts in the devolved departments—he mentioned those in Northern Ireland in particular—to find out how the Government could do things more collaboratively. What progress has been made on that? My noble friend Lord McLoughlin asked whether the Government had considered banning disposable barbecues. The Minister said that my noble friend had made a strong argument and that he would take the issue away and reflect on it. What are the results of that?
During the Whitsun Recess, I spent a family holiday on the south coast at Camber Sands. I noticed that Rother District Council had installed signs at the entrances to paths leading through the dunes to the beach banning both fires and barbecues—not just disposable barbecues but all of them. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to promote public awareness of the dangers of lighting fires or barbecues both in the countryside and at the seaside? Has he met representatives of local authorities to encourage a co-ordinated approach to these dangers?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I often walk in the hills—I love them—and the heather, so I have frequently thought about this. In the old days, you would normally find firebreaks burned into them. The trouble is that there has been a big movement from a lot of people who do not really know much about the hills or heather, but because they did an environmental course somewhere, they reckon that all the carbon will be locked up in the peat below. However, the point about burning the heather in strips to get a firebreak is that it has to be of a sufficient width.
Two things have to be done. First, you do the burn in winter. It is a cool burn, and therefore does not burn the roots below and does not touch the peat—it must not, because you want these things to reshoot again. You then have a lot of tall rank heather in which birds can hide and, next to that, new, fresh and regenerated growth of young shoots and insect life on which the birds can feed. If a raptor comes over, it can then shoot inside the cover. That is how it works, and people have known it for years.
Interestingly enough, I was chatting to a gamekeeper on a moor who said something quite funny. Some people from the Environment Agency or somewhere had decided to come out to see the heather themselves and wanted a tour. He took them up and showed them some heather that they had burned two years earlier. There was some lovely growth, and they said, “God, this is just what we want. How can we get this? This is what we need”. He showed them the other part and asked, “Well, have you looked over here?” They said, “Oh God, that’s terrible. It’s all dark and rank, and there is no life under it at all”. What they were looking at was the effect of a proper heather burn. It encourages the wildlife and does not go down into the peat—that is the whole point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jack, mentioned the Mars bar test, which is famous because the burn would not melt one. If you put it just under the surface litter, you would see that the surface litter has not burned and nor has the Mars bar melted. That proves that it is not touching the peat. In contrast, a wildfire goes down into and burns up a lot of the peat; it will be a long time—possibly a century or two—before that is regenerated through normal peat growth.
What is being touted at the moment is completely the wrong way round, because of the lack of understanding from dogmatic people who say, “It is just about trying to shoot grouse”. It is not; it is also about maintaining the countryside, the heather and the hills.
The people who have lived and worked there for generations know what they are doing. It is about time someone listened to and took advice from them, rather than from some expert who has done a brief environmental course and borrowed a pair of green wellies to do a farm walk then writes lots of stuff about this. What they need to do is read the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s work on these sorts of things because it is a charity that does its research regardless of fear or favour; basically, I recommend it to those who are trying to control these things.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on bringing this debate forward. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord Jack and Lord Gove on their excellent maiden speeches. It was a particular joy to serve alongside them in Cabinet—I actually mean that—and I am sure that they will add enormously to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords have highlighted their own experiences of wildfires domestically and of dealing with them, but I want to draw on an international example that I believe provides some learnings. A few years ago, I went to Seattle to attend a clean energy conference. We flew in overnight and, even from tens of thousands of feet in the air, as you looked out of the aircraft window, you could literally see the ground on fire down in Washington state below. At the time, terrible wildfires were raging across the state; as the plane drew lower, you could make out huge patches of forest on fire. I do not exaggerate when I say that it felt to me like looking into the jaws of hell. When we landed, we experienced the acrid smell generated by the wildfires and pollution; it hung like a heavy, choking cloak in the air.
I met some of the politicians and officials in the state government who were tasked with tackling these wildfires. They told me that, over the years, the fires have become more frequent and ferocious. One of the key learnings was effective preparedness: investing in equipment such as bulldozers and excavators; fitting aircraft with infra-red sensors and fire-mapping technology; recruiting more firefighters; sharing their learnings with other states prone to wildfires; and having in place equipment-sharing agreements with those states as well.
Of course, the wildfires that we experience in the UK are generally not as severe as those in North America—at least, so far—but, as we have heard in this debate, their frequency is on the rise and climate change is making things worse. I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to climate action more generally and to sticking with the aim of achieving net zero by 2050. I also welcome the Climate Change Committee’s progress report on adaptation from earlier this year, which called on the Government to create and implement a cross-departmental strategy with external shareholders in order to identify and mitigate the risks of wildfires.
I believe that this strategy should include an international component, with UK specialist wildfire experts learning and sharing effective mitigation actions, as well as training jointly with their counterparts in other nations, so that we can help each other when needed. That is currently happening across some jurisdictions. I also think that we need a national wildfire-fighting equipment asset register to allow for more effective sharing of resources across the country when they are needed. I look forward to the Minister’s feedback on these suggestions.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to take part in this debate; I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing it. I am a born-and-bred Londoner. Wildfires are not really an issue there, except that things have now become so bad that the urban-rural interface encroaches on London; this led to the London Fire Brigade’s busiest day since the Second World War, which has already been spoken about.
As we know, almost all wildfires in the UK are the result of incidental or deliberate acts by humans and have devastating impacts on local communities and wildlife. This issue was brought to my attention by residents near where I live in Essex, who have suffered greatly from fires. In 2022, Wennington was the scene of a wildfire that burned down 18 houses; at its peak, an area of more than 100 acres was ablaze. Some residents had their homes and all their worldly possessions completely destroyed.
There are various theories about the cause of that wildfire. One that many of the residents believe is that embers from a fire at the nearby Arnolds Field might have started the blaze. Under Arnolds Field are tonnes of years-old, illegally dumped toxic waste. It has been smouldering beneath the surface for decades; the site is now referred to locally as the Rainham volcano. Despite the slightly funny name, this is no laughing matter. The odour from the smoke emanating from the site has been the cause of misery to residents for several years. It has real-life impacts. Throughout the summer, the residents have to keep their doors and windows closed to prevent them choking on the fumes and smoke coming from the site.
However, these measures are not enough to keep residents from feeling the effects. One resident, Ms Pauline Claridge, has lived in Rainham for 15 years and was sadly diagnosed with asthma nine years ago and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease emphysema about five years ago. She believes that her breathing has become worse because of the smoke emanating from these fires.
There is a continuing saga of blame being passed around: the local council is not the landowner, so it thinks the landowner should take charge; meanwhile, the landowner believes that the Mayor of London should take charge. The locals believe that somebody should take charge, because they are suffering. I urge the Minister to write to me so that I can go back to those residents, as they want to know who will take charge of this case. I ask him to take particular note of the Rainham volcano and to learn why the Mayor of London, the local council or the landowner cannot prevent these fires happening and remove the site.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for bringing it and for his excellent speech. Having recently asked an Oral Question on this matter, I am particularly grateful for the Government’s wildfire strategy and action plan.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jack, not just on surviving 10 reshuffles but on putting out the fires of the noble Lord, Lord Gove. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gove, on successfully passing his apprenticeship. I welcome both to the House and wish them well.
Climate change is undoubtedly the primary driver of the increasing wildfire risk. To date we have been lucky, but we cannot continue to rely on our good fortune. Urgent action is required: we need joined-up plans, dedicated funding and equipment, improved public education, and nature-based land management solutions.
I pay tribute to our fire and rescue services, which are increasingly also our climate change emergency response services. We need to recognise the scale of the challenge and the lack of time we have to prepare. Met Office modelling says that we will have twice the number of summer days with dangerous weather conditions for fire, at under 2 degrees of warming. Extreme weather cycles are adding to the fuel loads that noble Lords have discussed: wet weather increasing growth, followed by extreme dryness and heat creating fuel for fire.
The Climate Change Committee, too, is clear and unequivocal that wildfires are more likely and will become more extreme. The year 2025 is no exception; more than 113 square miles have already been burnt. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness said, that is equivalent to the size of the Isle of Wight. Wildfires are devastating on so many levels. They are devastating to people and property, they are brutal to our biodiversity and they are a direct threat to our net-zero efforts. They kill organisms, alter habitats and release vast amounts of carbon.
We need more considered delivery and comprehensive policies and action plans. Can the Minister provide a clear update on when the strategy and action plan will be delivered? Does he agree that we need better joined-up thinking, not just between departments but between our different regions and nations? That collaboration is essential.
The National Fire Chiefs Council is clear that we are not prepared. Does the Minister agree that we need long-term sustainable investment and that our firefighters need specialist equipment to put out the fires? Do the Government agree that we need a single agreed definition of wildfires, so that we can best track them and find the solutions that we need?
These matters are urgent and critical. We have been lucky to date, but we cannot continue to survive on our luck alone.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for securing this debate on government action on wildfires. I am sure he is also grateful for the attention that this debate has attracted.
It is a pleasure to hear the maiden contributions of my noble friends Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove. Both bring exceptional experience, ability and knowledge to this House and will be enormous assets to its work. My noble friend Lord Jack has also helpfully highlighted their ability to work together.
In the brief time available, I turn to the subject of today’s debate. In doing so, I bring the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests, particularly ownership of unenclosed land used for grazing in Dartmoor National Park and in the Flow Country of Sutherland, both of which are adjacent to the scenes of devastating wildfires over the past few years.
I agree with my noble friends that our current Natural England management regime is often too restrictive on managed burning and, in many cases, prevents a practice that is beneficial to reducing fuel loads and creating firebreaks, an important cycle that allows vibrant regrowth and food sources for our native wildlife. Peatland restoration or rewetting is not the only answer, being applicable to a minority of uplands, and even there it offers only partial protection against wildfires. In drought, when peatland dries out, it becomes porous and very vulnerable to fire.
Will the Minister take this debate to his ministerial colleagues in Defra to reassess the role of Natural England in restricting controlled burning, with the result that fuel load is building to increasingly dangerous levels in our upland landscape at a time when climate change is sharply increasing the occurrence of wildfires? Natural England has no statutory responsibility for wildfire, yet it is being allowed to take decisions that have a direct impact on wildfire risk. As other noble Lords have highlighted, decisions in this area need to rely on science, not opinion.
Will the Government consider proactive measures, such as organising financial incentives from the beneficiaries of reducing wildfires—insurers and infrastructure and property owners—to fund land managers to create firebreaks and manage fuel load to reduce the extent and intensity of these fires?
In closing, I thank the members of fire and rescue services, gamekeepers, farmers, rangers and wardens who put their own safety at risk to protect infrastructure, property and lives from these devastating wildfires.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before you today to address the important topic of wildfire risk and the devastating impacts that wildfires can have on our communities. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for raising this important debate and for his invaluable insight in this area. I also welcome the noble Lords, Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove, to their places and thank them for their valued maiden contributions, especially in the light of the time restriction of only three minutes.
Before I go further, however, this weekend marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I know our thoughts are with the bereaved families, survivors and residents as they remember those who lost their lives. The Grenfell Tower inquiry has laid bare system failures, held government and industry to account and is now laying the foundation for urgent reform. We are determined to ensure that no community ever again suffers the way it has.
I also pay tribute to two firefighters, Jennie Logan and Martyn Sadler, who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty last month in Oxfordshire alongside Dave Chester, a member of the public. Two other firefighters were hospitalised in the same incident. My thoughts are with the families, friends and colleagues who have been impacted by this tragic event. Firefighters and wider fire and rescue service workers act with incredible dedication and bravery every day to protect the public. They will always have our deepest respect and gratitude.
Such events bring the risk we have been discussing into sharp focus, not least as outdoor fires, including wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact in the future, predominantly driven by climate change. We saw this in 2022, the UK’s hottest year on record, which saw more than 20,000 hectares of land in England burned, the destruction of more than 70 properties across the UK and at least 14 fire and rescue services declaring major incidents in their areas as they responded to numerous concurrent wildfires across the country.
This Government are committed to reducing this risk alongside mitigating the impacts they cause. Preparing for the future means not only tackling climate and nature emergencies but adapting to the changes they will bring to our environment. I recognise that wildfire is a complex area that cuts across many areas of interest and responsibilities. While my department, MHCLG, is the lead government department for this risk, we are reliant upon the good work of our partners. They include Defra and its agencies as well as the land management and fire sectors. We are also working with the devolved Administrations and fire services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need to continue and build our close working arrangements to share best practice learning on tackling wildfires effectively. It is vital that we take a co-ordinated approach to this risk, working in lockstep with our partners to prevent and mitigate the impact on people, property, habitats, livestock, natural capital and wildlife effectively.
To directly answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I have asked the relevant Minister, Alex Norris, to meet with devolved departments. There is no proposal, in addition to the question, to ban the barbecue, but the Local Government Minister and officials are already talking to local government officials.
This Government understand the risks and complexities of this area, which is why my officials have been undertaking extensive engagement with stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and responses to the wildfires. This has informed a comprehensive policy-scoping report to inform next steps.
Fire and rescue services are actively preparing for wildfires, as they are required to plan for the foreseeable risks in their area through their community risk management plans. These plans also have regard to the views of other key local responders. Following the events of 2022, the National Fire Chiefs Council—NFCC—has worked to extract learning and good practice from the incidents attended, with a view to shaping the future of wildfire prevention, community education and response. The NFCC is progressing actions that emerged from this, including improvements to training, national resilience and operational response. In 2024, the Government took an additional step by funding a national resilience wildfire adviser. This role is an operational role within the fire services, focused on evaluating what further national capabilities are needed to boost resilience against wildfires and ensure that efforts across the sector are well co-ordinated.
I move to some of the points raised in the debate, starting off with that from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about definition, which was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Government are committed to ensuring that we continue to improve the data collected on wildfires. This will be invaluable in shaping future advice and policy decisions in this space. At present, operational data on wildfires that is collected by the national resilience reporting tool, while a good proxy, cannot be used as an official statistic, as it may be incomplete or inaccurate and is gathered primarily to inform incident response. Improvements are being driven through the introduction of the new fire and rescue data platform—a new incident reporting tool used by fire and rescue services. This will introduce a formal definition of a wildfire, which will enable the Government to collect official data on the number of incidents and publish official statistics.
The noble Earl said that no decision should be made until we have the science available. The Government are alive to this evolving risk, and we are committed to putting in place the necessary measures to mitigate the impacts while driving forward the UK’s resilience and response to the wildfires.
To reassure the noble Earl on the issue of consultation, general consultations generally run between four and 12 weeks as good practice. The eight-week consultation on the proposed changes to the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 has now closed. Defra is analysing the feedback, which will be used to inform next steps.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jack, talked about land management. As many of your Lordships know, Defra has responsibility for the promotion of wildfire mitigation and adaptation planning to land managers. This is set out in more detail within the wildfire framework for England. Defra colleagues highlight that landowners and land managers are encouraged to adopt good quality wildfire management plans, and use sustainable methods to manage habitat and restore their peatland, as evidence shows—although not conclusively everywhere around the world—that wetter, healthy-functioning peatlands are more resilient to the impacts of wildfire.
I will not look to speak too much on behalf of another department, and I know that the noble Earl has some concerns and reflections, which I will pass on to Defra colleagues, but I am also aware of how important this issue is to Defra across its range of responsibilities. I thank the people there for their invaluable contributions to the wildfire scoping work to date, and my department looks forward to continuing to work with Defra colleagues on this issue.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I return to the point about barbecues. The Government have taken lessons from the devastation we saw during the 2022 wildfire season, working across departments to increase the prominence of wildfire messaging to the public. This included developing government social media messaging around periods of high wildfire risk and including wildfire as part of the Cabinet Office’s newly developed resilience website.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, who speaks with great expertise on climate change, that this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is working with international partners to address wildfire risks. This includes through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. The Government encourage more exchanges on wildfire preparation, prevention, response and recovery, including through initiatives such as the Global Fire Management Hub established by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN Environment Programme. The hub brings key partners together to share best practice principles and create greater consistency in wildfire response. The noble Lord asked us to reflect further, and I will do so with my officials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about national resilience and capability, which is a very important issue. The Government are committed to ensuring that fire and rescue services can draw on national life-saving capabilities, enabling them to respond effectively to large-scale or critical incidents. It is for this reason that the department funds the national resilience specialist capabilities, ensuring that national assets such as urban search and rescue, high volume pumps and CBRN decontamination are strategically located across the country for times of need. In 2024-25, the grant to all fire and rescue services hosting this equipment amounted to £17.9 million. In addition, the department funds the national resilience lead authority in Merseyside with a grant amounting to £16.6 million for 2024-25. For this, it delivers a key range of services, including capability assurance and specialist training.
A number of noble Lords alluded to Natural England. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked a question during our recent debate in the Chamber on the wildfire strategy and action plan. I took away an action to engage Natural England on its use of scientific advice when advising NGOs and other landowners on the risk of wildfire. I was pleased to confirm to the noble Earl that Natural England utilises the latest scientific advice as part of these activities. This is set out in its overarching science, evidence and evaluation strategy. Natural England’s science and evidence work involves assembling and commissioning such advice, then using it to underpin advice, decisions and actions. The strategy also helps to embed and promote its evidence standard.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. Wildfire is a topic that arouses strong emotions. It is part of a range of climate risks we need to adapt to in order to protect our future. I recognise the level of concern out there. We are seeing it in myriad other areas, whether that is flooding or more extreme weather events, or in the impact of global warming on wider geopolitics and the movement of people.
This Government recognise the challenges and welcome the spotlight from this debate. I believe that with the right actions and the right collaboration we can make a difference to how our country manages wildfire, both now and into the future. This will not be an easy task, but we are committed to working through these challenges with our partners. To do this, we will need to take an approach that improves our resilience and reduces the impacts from wildfires, driven through enhanced integration between stakeholders.
We have made good progress in driving improvements in data collection to address gaps; in the way we issue public communications to protect life and property; and in providing funding for a national resilience wildfire adviser in the fire service. The policy scoping work is exploring where we can go further and how we can better work across divides. This is a vital area that I am proud to be delivering. I thank again the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this important debate, and all other noble Lords for their invaluable contributions.
Political Parties and Elections Act 2009
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to protect our democracy by strengthening the rules around donations. We are currently considering a series of policy interventions, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations. This will help enhance the protections of our system against potential risks. We plan to set out further details in our strategy for elections, which we expect to publish this summer.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, it is 16 years since Parliament passed the simple but powerful safeguard in Section 9, in response to a financial scandal over the origin of donations. Implementation does not require any time for primary legislation, nor for the Treasury to be asked for any money, but it would make our political finances that bit more transparent, ethical and trustworthy. So, what is the reason for the Minister not to go back to the department this afternoon and simply say to colleagues, “I’ve got a commencement clause. I think we should sort this”?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I know the noble Lord has done a lot of research in this area, and we welcome that research. But, as I said in my previous Answer, we are committed to strengthening the rules around donations, improving our democracy and protecting our democracy from foreign interference. That will all be laid out in the summer and I am sure that, when it is, the noble Lord will be able to have a look, reflect and feed back into the whole process.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, in considering possible future changes, will the Government take account of political parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who received £2.4 million from a known and convicted fraudster, Michael Brown, and, 20 years on, have still to pay back that money to the people who were denied those resources?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot get involved in or discuss any individual donations, but I reassure him that we will ensure that we strengthen the law around political donations.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I know that, in my day, when I was party chairman—before I became independent—some of the biggest political donors were the trade unions. Does this review include the trade unions and the restrictions that could be placed on them?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, to the noble Lord’s question, your Lordships will have to wait until summer, when we will set out our strategy. The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely keen, in her role as Secretary of State for MHCLG, to ensure that we have strong electoral reforms ready for the next election.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if we are talking about motes and beams in different parties, will the Government now publish the redacted elements of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report on Russian money flowing into the Conservative Party? While I am on my feet, do the Government intend to simplify in any sense the great mess of electoral law, given that the Law Commission has done a lot of work on this and that electoral registration officers struggle with the various Acts—some of which are still extant, others of which have largely been expunged—in accordance with which they have to conduct their affairs?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can understand that I am not able to comment on any particular donations to parties. It is not for government to interfere with that. But he makes a very interesting point, so I will take a moment to let the House know that, as set out in our manifesto, we are committed to strengthening our democracy, widening participation and upholding the integrity of elections. This includes improving voter registration, extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, reviewing and addressing voter ID rules, and strengthening rules around donations to political parties. I can let noble Lords across the House know that we will be bringing an election Bill within this Parliament, hopefully in the very near future.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I asked a question on Monday about expenses incurred by Kent County Council in relation to DOGE investigations and the hiring of 12 accountants and systems engineers? Perhaps I might inform him that Kent County Council Conservatives will be writing to the leader of Kent County Council, a Reform councillor, to seek clarification on precisely what form the costs incurred by these people will take and whether they will be declared as donations or, alternatively, as costs on the council tax payer. They will, of course, copy the Minister and the Electoral Commission into any correspondence they both send and receive.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Lord for informing me. I know that he has great depth of experience in this area. Any suspected violations of donation rules fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission has the authority to investigate breaches and impose civil penalties when necessary. As part of efforts to enhance the regulations surrounding donations, including donations in kind, we are reviewing whether adjustments to the regulator’s role and powers are needed to ensure effective enforcement across the political finance framework.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, if I am going to be pre-empted in a question by anyone, it has to be William Wallace, has it not? But he is absolutely right. Of all the disgraceful donations the Tory party has had, those it got from Russia are the worst. I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will go back to the department and say that there is a strong view in the House of Lords that the report on donations from Russia should be made public as soon as possible.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Let me assure my noble friend that the Government remain steadfast in addressing the threat posed by disinformation and foreign interference in our democratic processes. Safeguarding the UK against such threats is and will always be an utmost priority.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concerns that excessive regulation and red tape can lead to unintended adverse consequences, as we have seen with the politically exposed persons regulations? With that in mind, can he tell the House what is the status of the review of the PEP regulations by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government, following legislation passed by this House?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government’s review of donations include looking at the whole issue of people making donations using cryptocurrency, given the potential for abuse and of hiding the true source of those donations?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend alludes to an important theme in terms of donations. The rules around political donations must be abided by, regardless of the type of donation made, including donations made using cryptocurrency. Those who receive donations must assess the value of the donation when they receive it and, if it is over the reporting threshold, they must report it to the Electoral Commission. Parties and other campaigners must also check that donations come from a permissible source and are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could take this into account. I tried to give a donation to the Democratic campaign before the last election, but I was not able to because I do not have an American passport. Can the Minister ensure that we apply the same sort of control as regards money coming into this country?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My noble friend makes an interesting point. I would not want to talk specifically about that example, but I can reassure him that the concern he shares with the House is a big focus area for making sure that those who donate are eligible to do so, have an interest in the UK and are tied to being part of the UK system, so their eligibility is absolutely legitimate.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does my noble friend recall that, before the last election, the Conservative Government—for reasons that slightly bewildered me and I think some others—decided to massively extend the franchise to people living abroad who had lived abroad for more than 15 years, many of whom had barely ever lived in the country and for whom it was almost impossible to establish even an address at which they were last resident in the United Kingdom? Now that we have had an election under these rules, can my noble friend at least publish for us the extent to which these newly enfranchised people exercised their vote at the last election, which could of course potentially have had an effect in individual constituencies, how much the system cost and whether there are any plans to revert to the previously very satisfactory situation?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Just to reassure him, part of our strategy in the summer will reflect on the very issues that he is talking about, and in it we will set out our strategy on wider electoral reform, including donations and the source of donations.
Post-16 Financial Education
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sater
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that young people receive adequate financial education in post-16 education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, financial education is delivered through the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 through citizenship education and the mathematics curriculum. Although it is not compulsory at key stage 5, our 16 to 19 study programmes guidance sets an expectation that students take part in “other non-qualification activity” to develop life skills, including “managing personal finances”. If a student post 16 is studying a level 2 maths qualification, the maths GCSE and functional skills qualifications support financial education as well.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. This week, many schools are taking part in Young Enterprise’s My Money Week campaign. However, despite best efforts, according to the Money and Pensions Service, over half of our young people reach the age of 18 having received no meaningful financial education. Therefore, at this crucial time between the ages of 16 and 18, when they could be receiving their first pay packet and accessing financial products and services, we have no meaningful education available. Will the Minister therefore consider a national programme to ensure that all young people aged 16 to 18 are ready and equipped to navigate the financial world and manage their money? Perhaps this could be a good deployment of the dormant assets scheme.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I also recognise the contribution that Young Enterprise plays, having been both a participant in it as a student and an organiser of it as a teacher of economics and business studies. I know that it does enormously important work, as do others, in supporting children, young people and adults in understanding financial education. We could possibly look to the Money and Pensions Service, which is under the auspices of the DWP and set out in January 2020 a 10-year framework to help UK citizens make the most of their money and pensions, with a focus on financial education for young people. With respect to the dormant assets scheme, which the noble Baroness mentioned, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed earlier this year that there will continue to be funding from dormant assets for precisely the point that the noble Baroness makes, which is to challenge financial inclusion and support financial education.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the Social Market Foundation reported last year—and this is very serious—that two in five young people, or 40%, are financially illiterate after they have been through school, so education in this field needs to start early. In the devolved nations, financial education is taught in primary schools. When will the Government start this in English primary schools? If they will not, why not?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
All primary schools in England teach many of the skills that are important for financial education as part of the maths curriculum. They also have non-statutory but important programmes of study for citizenship. Of course, from the age of 11, all students have compulsory financial education as part of their national curriculum entitlement to citizenship.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a fellow teacher, does the Minister agree that, rather than having token PSHE-day education, practical financial education should be embedded in the maths curriculum throughout the key stages?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord’s characterisation of the way that financial education is delivered, for example, through citizenship, but he makes an important point. I have just mentioned, of course, that financial education and the skills necessary to understand your finances and the concepts around them are part of the national curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4, and of post-16 maths study.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is a very important Question from the noble Baroness. One in four 18 to 24 year-olds is in some form of financial difficulty. Lacking knowledge of where to go for help or services that can help them, they are often pushed to illegal loan sharks. Does the Minister not think that we should run a young person’s public information campaign, which could be targeted in colleges, jobcentres and sixth forms?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, this is part of what the Money and Pensions Service strategy aims to do, as is the work I identified that is being supported by the dormant assets funding. We also need to work alongside the legitimate parts of the industry to make sure that the support and information that it is providing is made more broadly available to young people—and, in fact, to people throughout their lives. I suspect that those of us who did not have the opportunity to have even the type of financial education that children nowadays get have a continuing need to understand our finances well into our lives and, in particular, into our retirement.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Minister that many excellent examples exist in primary schools right across our country of financial literacy being taught to young people. Although I absolutely accept that, some urgent attention is required to ensure that children and parents are educated about their presence in the online world. Children as young as five years old are playing Roblox, and they need to extract money and card information that might be automatically available online. There is an urgent need for education very early on, but also among parents. Does she agree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the intersection of financial education and the need to ensure that our children have a good understanding about their online safety. Both those things, by the way, have been identified by the curriculum and assessment review that this Government set up as areas where it will want to say more when it reports in the autumn. As my noble friend says, parents have concerns as to whether there is sufficient space and direction in the school curriculum for these areas to be covered.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, we all know how important it is to manage our personal finances in adult life, and I am sure the Minister is aware that research shows that financial education makes young people more confident with money management and helps them to make better and more informed financial decisions. So, will the Government consider participating in the OECD PISA study of financial literacy, which could help identify gaps in current provision and allow better monitoring and benchmarking of progress towards every young person leaving education with a strong foundation of financial capability, which I am sure we all appreciate will be invaluable in their working lives?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have had some very good contacts with the OECD about the work that it is doing, not just in this area but more broadly. I cannot commit at this moment that we will take part in that study, but I will certainly undertake to go away and consider whether there are opportunities there.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, children leaving care are particularly disadvantaged in this area. Can the Minister say whether there will be special provision for children leaving care to be provided with financial advice for when they are really on their own?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point about the need to support young people leaving care. That, of course, is the reason for making personal advisers available to young people in that position. It is why, as we have been, and will be, debating in the Bill that comes later and more broadly in the Government’s reforms, we must be much clearer about the support available to care leavers and the offer that needs to be made available to them in all parts of the country.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about citizenship in schools. We had a brilliant committee last year on 11 to 16 education, which came out with amazing recommendations, all of which the Conservative Government turned down, so it would be very nice to know that the Labour Government will pick those up. Can she say what success we are having in recruiting citizenship teachers? This was one of the big difficulties when all this was put into citizenship.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know that since citizenship was established—in fact, I had some responsibility for it the first time I was a Minister in the Department for Education—there has been enormous progress in the ability to deliver those sorts of skills to children in our schools, but also an ongoing challenge to make sure we recruit the specialist teachers in order to be able to do that. That is why the Government are determined to increase the numbers of specialist teachers by 6,500, and why we have put in place the financial and training support in order to encourage them into the profession and keep them in it.
Ethics and Integrity Commission
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to establish an Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure probity in government.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards of ethics and integrity. Steps we have taken already to improve probity and transparency include the new Ministerial Code, the strengthened terms of reference for the independent adviser and the new monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality. On an ethics and integrity commission, Ministers are assessing all the options and we will update Parliament on decisions in due course.
While we are discussing processes related to ethics, integrity and standards in public life, I should declare that my husband is a member of the Committee on Standards in the other place.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I congratulate the noble Baroness.
This was a clear pledge in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and Liberal Democrats agree that it is essential to re-establishing public trust after the many unethical actions, and even corruption, that we saw particularly under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. On my shelves at home, I have a whole file of reports from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from outside commissions, think tanks et cetera, setting out the options on this. There are some very clear and simple choices. If I were asked to write the consultation paper, I think it would take me a weekend. Why have the Government delayed so much in doing so?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we should discuss bookshelves. As for what we are doing, we have taken immediate action, but we want to make sure that, given how important ethics and integrity are in public life, and especially as—and I think the noble Lord agrees—one of the main ways in which we can challenge and counter the politics of populism is to make sure that people can genuinely trust their politicians, we need to make sure that the structures we put in place work and are right and effective. We are working on it, and I will update the House in due course.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, when this commission arrives, if it ever does, will His Majesty’s Government ensure there is no unprofitable overlap with the excellent work being done by the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an excellent question. That is one of the reasons we have not rushed into it—to make sure that we are not replicating the organisations and entities that govern standards, integrity and ethics in public life, and that we can come forward with a proper, genuine response to what is needed. I assure the noble Lord that we are factoring in his question.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is there not also a deeper issue as to who is entitled to decide who sits—particularly in the elected House—to represent people? Fundamentally, should it not be for the criminal courts of this country and the electorate to decide both on the individual they are being asked to vote for and, indeed, collectively the Government?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, as we are the unelected House, I completely agree that it is for the electorate—I have faced them several times; they liked and then did not like me—to decide who they seek to represent them and to have an understanding of the values of those people. I thank my noble friend, but we have very clear processes in place to protect standards. It is important the general public has faith in them too.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is a real danger that ethics and integrity considerations could seriously impede the working of the Government by forcing them to reclassify minor misdemeanours, such as the killing and dismemberment of a journalist in a friendly country, as gross abuse of human rights, as seen in other countries?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has an interesting take on the questions of ethics and integrity in public life. Obviously, the Government have to look at all issues in the round when considering issues of diplomacy and engagement with all our allies. The specific point raised is a matter for the FCDO.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, on 25 July last year, when asked about progress on establishing an ethics and integrity commission, the Government Minister in the other place said:
“this is always going to be about ‘show, not tell’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/24; col. 797.]
We have since had a year of the Government telling us there would be progress. Could the Minister tell the House what the timescale is for when the Government will be able to show us progress?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Well, I query the interpretation of what my honourable friend in the other place said. He said “show, and tell”. We have told: we have updated the Ministerial Code; we moved the Nolan principles into the Ministerial Code for the first time; we have added the concept of service, which is incredibly important to this Prime Minister; we have updated the terms of reference for the independent adviser, who can now act without the Prime Minister’s instigation; and we have introduced a new monthly register of guests and hospitality. We have both shown and told. In terms of establishing the commission, noble Lords will have to wait a little longer and I will update your Lordships’ House in the normal way.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in July last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed in the other place that work had begun on the Government’s planned ethics and integrity commission. Obviously, the role of the chair of this commission will be very important. Can the Minister confirm that there will be proper oversight of the appointment of any future chair of the commission, that Parliament will have a role in the process and that the chair will remain democratically accountable to Parliament through Ministers in the usual way?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness tempts me to give details about what the commission will or will not look like. I am sure we will discuss this in your Lordships’ House when parliamentary time allows. With regards to the independence of the chair, the appointments to bodies and offices listed in the public appointments Order in Council are made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and so would the chair of any future commission.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister and most Members of this House will be aware that there have been a large number of examples of scandals and misdemeanours in Scotland by Scottish Ministers as well as Members of the Scottish Parliament. Will this commission cover the devolved authorities? I hope it will.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me into areas that are not appropriate, but he is right that there has to be a trusted and valued ethics and standards process in each part of our nations and regions. With regard to the devolved Assemblies, that is wholly a matter for the devolved Governments, but I would hope that any changes that the UK Government made are also considered—because I am sure they will be best practice—by our devolved Governments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, we have just had a round of local elections in England and many new councillors have taken up their responsibilities. Will this body be considering the local government dimension as far as ethics is concerned?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an excellent point, which I am just assured by my noble friend sitting to my right that we are working on in the English devolution Bill and that conversations are ongoing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this clearly involves considering a large number of bodies which are concerned with standards in government, Parliament and local government. Does the Minister consider that the process of establishing an ethics and integrity commission will require legislation, or can it be done through executive decisions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, work is currently ongoing about what we will bring forward and how we will bring it forward. I will update the House as soon as I can.
Winter Fuel Payment
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take to change the entitlement to the Winter Fuel Payment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, we are extending eligibility so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the winter fuel payment. That means 9 million pensioners will now receive it—more than three-quarters of pensioners.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, since tabling this Question, we have had 40 minutes of exchanges on Tuesday. In fairness to the Minister, he addressed most of the questions, albeit at times provocatively. However, he did not answer the question from my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who asked why, when the Government needed to save money on the winter fuel allowance, they did not simply abolish it and then increase in November each individual’s entitlement to the state retirement pension by the same amount and recover it through the tax system. The Minister said:
“That may be one option, but it is not the option we have chosen”.—[Official Report, 10/6/25; col. 1224.]
Would that not have been simpler?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the question. We have to remember the circumstances in which we found ourselves back in the autumn. We had to take many difficult and urgent decisions, because we needed to find in-year savings due to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we inherited. We had to come in and make urgent in-year decisions. We therefore had to put in place a system that was able to generate immediate savings. The system that the noble Lord describes was not able to generate those immediate savings. That is why we did what we did. We are now able to extend eligibility, as I have said. We are extending it so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the winter fuel payment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord asks whether there is a plan. Can the Minister confirm that there is a plan, and whether, if it does not work, they will again have another plan? Things change so much. Is there a reserve plan for when this plan does not work?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not sure I entirely followed the noble Lord’s question. We have set out clearly what the policy is. All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from the support, as will all those on pension credit and certain other income-related benefits. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone over 80, will be made to all pensioner households in England and Wales. Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered by HMRC without the need for them to take action.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, earlier this week, when the Prime Minister was explaining the rationale for the Government’s change on the winter fuel payment, he said that because the economy was now growing as a result of the Government’s policies, they were now able to make this change. Given the news yesterday that the economy is no longer growing, but actually shrank in April, would the Minister like to have another go at explaining the reason for the reversal of policy, and perhaps be honest about the fact that it was just incredibly unpopular and very ill-thought-through in the first place?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
One thing that was ill-thought-through was the Liz Truss mini-Budget and the £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which is why we had to take the action that we did. It might be nice if the noble Lord took some responsibility for what we inherited. As I said already, when we came into office, we had to take a number of very difficult and urgent decisions to put the public finances back on a firm footing. That involved difficult decisions on welfare, on tax and on spending, and one of those was means-testing the winter fuel payment. We have listened to the concerns about the level of the means test and we are now able—all the while still means-testing the winter fuel payment, because that is the right thing to do—to extend eligibility so that this winter, all pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will receive it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by wishing my noble friend the Minister best wishes for his birthday today. He has the special treat of an Urgent Question and a Statement on the spending review—what more could anyone ask for?
I very much welcome the decision to reintroduce the winter fuel payment. In answer to the Question, my noble friend said that anyone with income above £35,000 would not receive the payment. There is one problem with that, in that some forms of income are not taxed. Someone with a substantial cash ISA—I understand that there is a Member on the Liberal Benches who has £1 million in his ISA; he has made no secret of it, and presumably receives a very substantial income—with a taxable income of less than £35,000, would presumably still receive the winter fuel allowance, or is some step going to be taken to avoid that problem?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and for his birthday wishes—that was very kind of him. Obviously, we had to achieve the right balance between a simple system to administer and getting the support to those who need it most. The system that we have come up with sticks with the existing rules of the tax system and, I think, achieves the right balance, as I described.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, like other Peers, I welcome this decision. The other day, I asked the Minister something to which he did not respond, and I wonder if I might ask it again. Is one of the lessons learned from this for the Government that, should they be making further cuts in spending, they might not look to vulnerable or disabled people.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. I am sure that all of us have lessons to learn in life. I believe that it is very important that we reform our welfare system; it is not working and it needs reform, and I think everyone agrees with that. We will do this on a principled basis—namely, that those who can work should work, that those who want to work should be supported so that they can do so, and that we protect those with the most severe disabilities who will never be able to work.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, I did not welcome this decision. Turning to principles, does he agree that cliff edges in the tax and benefits system are undesirable? Can he explain whether, when a pensioner’s income moves from £34,999 to £35,000, support will be tapered away, or whether £1 in extra income will result in a £300 loss of winter fuel allowance?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows much more about the tax and benefits system than I do, I suspect, having spent many more years working on it than me. The answer to his question is that it is the latter: it is up to and including £35,000, so it will be at £35,001 where that happens. At that point, they will lose the winter fuel payment in its entirety.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am glad of the opportunity to wish the Minister a happy birthday from these Benches.
We welcome the decision by the Government partially to reverse their decision on the winter fuel allowance. That will ensure that our oldest and most vulnerable citizens are better protected through the dark and cold of the winter months. However, when he answered questions before, the Minister did not adequately answer how this £1.25 billion reversal will be funded. Can he tell us today whether it will result in further tax rises, in departmental spending cuts or in increases in borrowing, and, if not, where the money will come from?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words. We are setting out these changes now to ensure that more pensioners are able to receive support this winter. That is important. As she knows, we have moved to just one fiscal event a year, so, as is now normal, these changes will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, which is the Budget in the autumn. This will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside a full forecast from the OBR—something that the previous Government did not do—and we will ensure that the fiscal rules are met at all times.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, following the reference to those on these Benches and ISAs, I should perhaps declare to the House that I do not have £1 million in my ISA—I wish.
The Minister said that all pensioners earning up to £35,000 would benefit from this. Where I live, in the Scottish Borders, he will be aware that there is a degree of uncertainty, because of the interaction with devolved responsibilities, and because the benefits and tax system is reserved. Can the Minister reassure those where I live, in the Scottish Borders, that they will indeed benefit from what the Government have announced?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that winter fuel payments are a devolved policy in Scotland. The Scottish Government will receive a mechanical uplift in their funding as a result of the change in England and Wales. The Minister for Pensions spoke to his counterpart in Scotland on the day that this policy was announced. We are very conscious of the need for sufficient lead-in time, and those discussions will continue.
Conduct Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Tracey McDermott CBE and Sir David Steel KBE be appointed as external members of the Committee in place of Mark Castle OBE and Vanessa Davies.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, the Conduct Committee is made up of five Peer members and four external members. The first group of four external members was appointed in autumn 2019 for an initial three years, renewable for a further three years—in other words, until later this year. To help maintain continuity, two of the external members have kindly agreed to step down a few months early, and I thank them for their service to the committee. The appointment of their successors has followed an open competition. That process was delayed by the sad loss of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, kindly agreed to step in to chair the interviewing panel. She was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Prashar, and by one of the continuing external members, Cindy Butts.
I ask the House to approve the appointment of Sir David Steel and Tracey McDermott on the same terms as their predecessors: for three years in the first instance with the possibility of renewal for a further term thereafter. Biographical details are available in the Printed Paper Office. I am confident that both will bring valuable experience and wisdom to the work of this important committee. The final two appointments will be made towards the end of the year. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, may I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a question? When we debated the excellent report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, there was an issue that there was a differential in the terms of office between the Peers who were appointed. He is suggesting that this appointment will be for three years, with the opportunity of renewal for another three years. Would that apply to Peers who are appointed to the committee?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. To clarify, the rotation of Peer members is a matter that will be coming before the Procedure and Privileges Committee. My understanding is that it was originally not intended that Peer members should be subject to the three-year rotation rule for this committee. That appears at some time to have blended into the three-year rotation. This matter arose, as noble Lords will know, from the review. It will come before the Procedure and Privileges Committee for consideration and will obviously come back to the House for clarification. That is the position; we are going to look at the procedure to clarify what I think was an error some years ago about the term of the Peer members.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am grateful for that answer but it seems to suggest making an appointment for three years, with which I very much agree, and holding out the possibility of a further three-year term. Is the Senior Deputy Speaker not pre-empting the committee’s decision? Or is it the case that, should it decide that Peers appointed to the Conduct Committee should have only a three-year appointment, the offer of an extension would be withdrawn?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I am seeking to say that it was originally not intended that the Conduct Committee membership should be subject to the three-year rotation rule. It appears that this needs to be resolved, and that is why it has come up for consideration by the Procedure Committee. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt what the Procedure Committee or your Lordships may decide—I am very well aware of that—but I am setting out the parameters of what the Procedure Committee and the House may need to resolve so that the Peer members are not subject to the three-year rotation rule if that is what the House, and before that the Procedure Committee, should wish.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
It might assist the Senior Deputy Speaker and my noble friend if I add to what has been said. As a newly appointed member of the Conduct Committee and as one of the members who were part of the recruitment process, one of the things that has been important to me in the disparity between the appointment terms for Peers and non-Peer members is that there is no assumption that a non-Peer member, at the point of their appointment, will automatically get another three-year term at the end of their first term. That is important, because previously I had heard it being discussed that the non-Peer members were appointed for six years. That is the point that we need to get away from—the assumption that there will always be a second term.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
Without wishing to elongate this, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that. It primes that this is a matter for the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider. If there is further clarification, obviously it will come back before your Lordships.
Parliamentary Commercial Department
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House endorses the Report from the House of Lords Commission Establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses (2nd Report, HL Paper 124); and in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the House of Lords Commission. We are asking the House to support and endorse the report published on 14 May establishing Parliament’s commercial function as a joint department of both Houses. I hope that noble Lords have read the report, which provides a clear explanation of and rationale for this decision. The Parliamentary Commercial Directorate is a shared service between both Houses, based in the House of Lords. It is responsible for all procurement and it sets and monitors standards for contract management across Parliament.
In 2022 the noble Lord, Lord Morse, undertook an independent review of financial management, which included looking in considerable detail at Parliament’s shared commercial service. The noble Lord found underperformance in all commercial areas compared with the rest of the public sector. Following publication of his report in November 2022, new leadership was brought in. The new commercial directors developed and delivered significant improvements, and by March 2025 these were rated as being good or better in all areas.
The commercial needs of Parliament are complex and challenging, and likely to become even more so in the future. It is essential that our commercial function continues to improve and has the confidence of both commissions. To achieve this, the next step is the establishment of the joint department. Before reaching this decision, we in the commission sought assurances about the arrangements to protect the joint interests of each House and to continue the improvements already under way. We have agreed a governance and performance framework so that the department will now be accountable to both Houses and will provide information about its priorities, service and performance. The current directorate staff—around 40 people—will be transferred to the new department and employed jointly by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons as the corporate officers. The team will be led by a new chief commercial officer currently being recruited. We expect the transfer to take place on 1 October.
In conclusion, I acknowledge and recognise the significant improvements that have been made in the last couple of years following the excellent and very helpful report and review of the noble Lord, Lord Morse. I put on record our thanks for the commitment and professionalism shown by the commercial directors and their team in achieving this. I look forward to working with them to achieve further progress. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I welcome the decision to make some changes here, but can the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of the new front door at the Peers’ Entrance has been? Very senior Members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.
I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs. If we are going to have a joint department—and I welcome the appointment of some new leadership in this area—how can we be assured that the necessary commercial competencies will be there, as well as the ability to understand the importance of listening to what this House has to say and taking account of it in making these decisions?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I am not going to continue on the saga of the front door, although I agree completely with what the noble Lord has just said. Even I am considered occasionally a bit more diplomatic than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He is right that there are now a number of areas for which there is joint responsibility, and one of them is security. I have been conscious of the fact that the House of Commons seems to dominate decision-making. Wherever it comes from, whether it is the Speaker, the House of Commons Commission, the Services Committee or whatever, they always get their own way and the interests of this House are not properly considered.
Neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, are blaming the Leader of the House, who does everything she can, as do the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Lord Speaker, but we should back them up and say that where it is sensible to have Joint Committees, we should have them. There should be more joint working on catering, for example; it seems crazy that we have two completely separate catering departments. There are whole areas like that which could be brought more closely together, but, in doing so, the interests of this House must not be forgotten. I say that having been a Member of the other place and recognising its pre-eminence regarding legislation; but in terms of this Building, the use of it and our own interests, we are just as important as the House of Commons.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that all those individuals—and I mean individuals rather than collective groups of people—who sign contracts on behalf of this House have professional indemnity insurance? Can she explain to the House what that level of cover is and what decisions were made in determining how much it should be?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
To follow up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my colleague on this lovely front door, I have good information that it is the first time that such a design has been used. Why should we be guinea pigs? We believe in precedent here for a large number of different things, but not in being a guinea pig for a kind of door that clearly does not work. Portcullis House has doors that seem to work all right—did no one test it first?
On the question of professional indemnity, is anyone going to be found to be at fault here? I imagine not, but we have to make sure it does not happen again.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about use of the Commons Terrace. I have been a Member of this House for very many years and occasionally have used the Commons Terrace. About a year ago I had one of my grandsons here for lunch in the Commons canteen, and I wanted to take him on to the Terrace but was told I was not allowed to. I found that deeply shocking. The Terrace that we have at this end is very small compared to the one at the other end. There is usually masses of room at the other end, particularly in the area reserved for Members, so I ask that representations be made to the Speaker of the House of Commons on restoring the use of the Terrace to Members of this House.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the report and what the Leader of the House has said. Some very important points have been made. As a member of the commission, I know that it is well versed in and very involved in discussions on these matters.
This is undoubtedly the right way forward. We are served in this House by some excellent and dedicated people, through all levels of service. We are going to see more joint working. Since I took over as chairman of the Services Committee, carrying on the excellent work done by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, we have looked at having some joint meetings with the Commons Administration Committee, which will be taking place later this year. I want the Leader to think about the way in which that joint directorate is in future going to be accountable to both Houses through its membership—not just the commission, though the commission is important. A lot of business goes to the commission, and sometimes there is not always time available to us as a commission to apply the kind of in-depth knowledge and attention that is sometimes needed to the various issues that come along.
I hope that the Leader will address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which I know is in her mind. We must ensure that the governance of any joint working body is seen to be clearly accountable to both Houses, and that it involves the memberships of both Houses. That said, I very much welcome the report.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
A number of Peers present at the moment, and indeed the Clerk of the Parliaments, went home rather late last night. As we did so—the door was conveniently left open for us to go through at our liberty—I noticed a large number of heavy-duty lorries outside, parked across the bus stop. This morning, as I came in, I noticed that fencing has been erected in front of the doorway. It looks to me like a bit of an eyesore, if I am honest, and I cannot understand why we have allowed this to happen.
In connection with last night’s debate, I wonder whether it is intended that Victoria Tower Gardens should be similarly surrounded by fencing of a similar nature. I think we should be told. It seems to have happened without much consultation, under the heading of “security”, and I think it is regrettable.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I want to add just one thing about what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. The dominance of the position of the House of Commons certainly resulted in the death of one Member of this House. Many years ago, when I came in, I fought for four years to get a defibrillator established in this place, because repeatedly a number of Members of the House collapsed after speaking. Most of the time this was innocent but, once or twice, we had cardiac arrests and people were taken to St Thomas’s Hospital.
When I finally tried to raise this with the officials of this House, I was given a meeting with officials in the other place and told very firmly that the House of Commons would not accept this. One of the things that was said to me was, “What would we do if a member of the public collapsed in the Gallery? Would it be our responsibility?” Interestingly, the medical advice in this House was not considered sufficient for the medical advice in the lower House.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Perhaps I might briefly add to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, focusing in particular on the door. There are many other points that could be made. I think it seems very sensible to do things jointly, although I am concerned this will lead to even less accountability. The important thing is to find out who is accountable. It is alleged that the door was going to cost £2 million and may have cost £11 million or £12 million. If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked. If it is true, we need answers and somebody, on every decision that is made, needs to be accountable.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can I ask the Leader of the House to investigate the position of access to the Terrace? One of the greatest privileges of the House, apart from the Chamber and Library, is access to the Terrace. Our Terrace is infinitely smaller than the Terrace next door, which I enjoyed as a Member of the other place. It strikes me that many of the places are taken on the Terrace by Members of the other place and their guests, leaving not enough places for Members of this House. I think it should be reciprocal. I am quite happy to allow Members of the other place to use our Terrace on the basis that we are able to use theirs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned my diplomatic skills. I now start my audition for a role at the UN.
I will challenge one thing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, which I strongly reject: that we are a part-time House. Those of us who were here at 1.30 am would not think that. We are a full-time House. We do not expect every Member the of House to be full-time, but the work of the House is a full-time responsibility.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have said that, unlike the other place, we are unpaid.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Round one on my diplomatic interview. A number of points have been raised and I want to try to address them. This has gone wider than the question.
On the door itself, there are two issues: cost and operability. It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should. I can answer some of the questions. I will deal with the cost first, because there is wildly exaggerated and incorrect information. When you do not give information that is correct, incorrect information gets into the realm, which is unhelpful.
There is normally a rule that information regarding security costs is not provided. I think that does not help in this case at all. In terms of how it came about in the first place, noble Lords will remember—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may remember this—the Murphy review. After the death of a police officer at the other end of the building, it was important we considered the safety of those who work on the estate—not just Peers and MPs but all those who work on the estate. Their safety and security are of the utmost importance. We have had incidents that show that is important. The fence was part of the review. Noble Lords have been consulted and advised on that on many occasions. It is about security.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will give way shortly, but I have a lot of questions to answer.
So, it is unacceptable, but the reassurance I can give is that the directorate is changing. I think that joint working, with a Parliament-wide department to deal with these issues, seems a no-brainer. Why have we not done it before? So many of the services we have are joint. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned catering. To have these individually in different Houses does not seem to be the most cost-effective way of doing things. It is taxpayers’ money we are talking about, but we also need to provide a good service for all of those working on the estate, including Peers and MPs.
On the point about the joint access, I share noble Lords’ frustrations. It does seem to me that it goes in one direction, because even those of us who are former MPs are not now able to access the House of Commons Terrace, or, for those who might like a pint in the evening, the Strangers Bar or other facilities. Yet I find that the River Restaurant at the Lords end of the building is often full of Members of the House of Commons and staff from the House of Commons. We welcome them; it proves we have better food at this end of the building. There is no calorie content on Lords menus, whereas there is on Commons menus, so that might be part of the attraction. But it does seem that we should look at a whole-House approach to these things and treat all Members of both Houses with equal respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the door and whether this was the first time for the design. My understanding is that it is not the first time for the design of the pod, but it is the first time—if I am not correct, I will write to him—in terms of having it in a heritage setting with the additional security measures required. I take on board the point he made on that.
On the issue of signing contracts, I will double-check on this. My understanding is that, with most government departments and local authorities, these things tend to be self-funded. I will double-check and come back to the noble Baroness, but that is what normally happens with large organisations. I have a Treasury Minister behind me who will tell me afterwards whether I have got this wrong.
The issue around how, when you have a joint department, you ensure the needs and views of this House are taken into account is absolutely well made. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, raised this issue as well. Where we are getting to on this one is having an oversight body. We have looked at various ways of doing this. I think the noble Lord is absolutely right; the commission is not the best way of doing this. There is too much on the agenda. I think it has to be much more focused. That was the discussion at the commission this week. It will be a separate, bespoke body with expertise from both Houses that will ensure it runs properly and will work with the team to ensure we continue improvements.
I did not quite understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made about defibrillators. If anybody on the estate is taken ill, whether they be a visitor, a staff member, a Peer or an MP, we would want on any occasion to provide the support they need. We do have defibrillators in the Palace of Westminster; at this end of the building, we have one in Peers’ Lobby, one in the Prince’s Chamber, one in the Public Gallery and one at Peers’ Entrance. Whatever the problem was, it seems to have been resolved. It is not for the House of Commons to tell the Lords where defibs should be in this building—and I am sure the House of Commons would not want to.
Lord Winston (Lab)
This was before we had any defibrillators. We were a long time trying to persuade Black Rod at that time to ensure that we did have this sort of support. Eventually, he called in the Serjeant at Arms and other Members of the House of Commons, who told me very firmly that this was not going to be possible. It was only subsequently that we then got defibrillators everywhere. Now, of course, we are well protected, but, in the space of that time, at least two or three Members collapsed, and we did not have defibrillators. I was called to do the medical resuscitation, so I remember this very clearly. It was quite a searing moment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Clearly, we have moved on and are in a much better position now.
Baroness Browning (Con)
When I was talking about professional indemnity, I had particularly in mind the fact that, apart from the operation of the door, which has been discussed, I have lost count of how many times the specially made glass panel has been replaced—I cannot remember whether it is three or four. Surely whoever signed the contract for that must be in a strong position to make sure that we pay for only one.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Absolutely; that would be part of what you would normally do if it was a new house—the snagging. Anything that is down to a manufacturer’s fault, such as operability, is down to those who installed the door. We are not at all responsible for any of those extra costs.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I welcome what the Leader of the House has said. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been told persistently in relation to the door—and there are other examples as well—I am very interested that the figure was not available because of security matters, and yet the Leader of the House has just provided what are staggering figures, many moons after we were told, over and again, that we are dealing with a security matter. I welcome the joint operation that is being discussed, but this suggests to me an unwillingness of members of management in this building to disclose information to Members of this House and the other House, because it is presumed that Members of both Houses do not need these figures or information. As a number of noble Lords will expect, I will give an example: I have faced exactly the same problem when I have asked questions in relation to the cost of traffic marshals. There seems to be a level of resentment towards the idea that Members should have the right to ask these questions and expect an answer.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is an accepted tradition that we do not disclose security information and the costs. Costs on this have been available to Members on the relevant committees, so they were available—and I will probably be sacked later for giving the costs anyway. Given that there was this degree of suspicion about the costs—some of the figures were inflated—and because the door has not been working, it was the view of the commission yesterday that it was important that the costs were made available to Members, so that they have accurate information. When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.
On the new joint department, it is really important going forward that we have the right expertise and the right knowledge. There are things that went wrong here that should be used to inform further decisions, and engaging Members on all these decisions is really important. However, when we engage Members, there are, dare I say it, two Members and three opinions, and a wide spread of views around the House, and sometimes we have to say no to Members because we cannot say yes to everybody. There is a danger that we try to please everybody and end up pleasing nobody.
The words “lessons learned” are currently banned from my office, but there are some points here that we can take away and use to resolve these issues, so that we do not have the same problems in the future. The important thing is to get this joint department up and running, with the proper oversight, and to ensure we have proper and workable security arrangements that protect all of those who work in the Palace and that do the job they are supposed to do.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I do not want to detain the House, but I am worried about the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I understand the point about maintaining security, but it is awfully convenient to be able to say that we cannot be told the cost. What is the cost, for example, of the new fence that has been put up, which is hideous? We are being told that we cannot know that because of security, but each and every one of us goes back to where we live—I was going to say to our constituencies—and get mocked about the cost. We are held accountable, and we are meant to be accountable. My worry about this “tradition” is that it means that there is no accountability. When you do not have accountability for expenditure, you get excessive expenditure—and my goodness me, that front door is an example.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord made a number of points. There are always increased costs because of the heritage nature of the building. I do not think any of us is entirely comfortable with having a fence. In the days when I was first a Member of Parliament in the other place, you could walk in without even needing a pass. Times have changed, and that is the reason we have this fence. These things are not unreasonable if there is genuinely a security issue, and I would defend that, but perhaps we sometimes need to stress-test these things a little more, and perhaps that is a role for the commission to undertake.
Sometimes costs seem alarming. Those of us who used to be in local government or who were Ministers will know that, when you account for things and look at the cost, it always seems far more than if you were doing it in your own back garden. This is not just a front door; it is something much more serious than that, and we have to get it up and running. All of us on the commission—a number of us are here in the Chamber today—will take this away, and I know that the Lord Speaker feels the same. We will stress-test those issues. Where information can be made available to Members, it should be, but where it cannot, noble Lords can trust the commission to look at these issues and make decisions with the security people.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. It seems that there is an underlying malaise here. The majority of Members of this House, in which I include myself, have very little idea of what the commission does. What communication structures does the commission have in place to ensure that, within the limitations of confidentiality, Members have some idea of what it is doing and what decisions it is making? I think the majority of this House is unclear about all of that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am often surprised by this. Within our party groups, we usually get reports of significant decisions made by the commission. The minutes are published, with redacted items, on the internal website, so that information is available. I do not know if the noble Baroness is asking for more information to be made available beyond the minutes and the reports made to her party group.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Would Members not benefit from a quarterly or bi-monthly publication by the commission of what it has been doing? In the digital age, it could be transmitted to every Member—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I will try to press forward on that point. The Lord Speaker’s newsletter publishes some of the information. If the noble Baroness wants a quarterly report, rather than the minutes published after the meeting, that can be done, but it will be published in the same way as the minutes of the meeting are published. We will look into that, if that helps her.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
I hope the Leader of the House has not overlooked that every moment the unworking door remains unworking, we are haemorrhaging money. There will have to be permanent staff there to press the button, which will presumably require a team of three or four who will have to be salaried. In any normal arrangement, it should be mended tomorrow morning. Can we afford to leave it as it is?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is quite difficult to answer that one. Yes, repairs are undertaken from time to time, but there has to be a systematic look at how the door can be made operable ongoing, without repairs being needed. If that cannot be done, alternative arrangements have to be made. That is the very issue I have been speaking about, and which we are looking at. It is a matter of urgency, and I hope that I have conveyed to the House that frustration is felt across the House and is understood.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The Leader has done extremely well, if might say so, because she is not responsible for this; she is not to blame. Once upon a time I used to deal in assaulting buildings, and let me tell you that you would not assault a door where two police officers with submachine guns were standing. Now you can assault that door, because there are no policemen with machine guns—you would go round the back, if you wanted to assault it. I am afraid that the advice she was given on security is, frankly, nonsense.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have to say to the noble Lord that it is not nonsense. There have been officers with machine guns on the door, but that does not take away the need to have a proper door that is secure for the House. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever read the Murphy review, which covered both Houses—it may have been published when he was in the other place; I am not sure whether he was in this House then. We need to take these things seriously. All of us will have solutions and simple answers and will say, “If you do this, it will be fine”. But let us just look at getting the door up and running. The purpose today is to look to the future, and the issue before us is the joint department. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments; I hope that my next job will be at the UN.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
The noble Baroness was talking about the minutes. I have asked the Printed Paper Office if it has copies of the minutes of the commission’s meetings. In fact, I have asked several times. There are some copies, but they date from February; they are on the table where we collect our papers in the morning. It may be that they are available online, but when I have asked the people in the Printed Paper Office, they have said, “Well, they’ll send them to us when they’ve got them to give us”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Well, I am not quite sure why there is such a delay. The minutes of the meeting that took place this week were approved yesterday, and they will be available this week. I think the noble Lord may have been misinformed, but they are available as they have been approved. We have changed the process because they used not to appear until the next meeting, which is unacceptable, so in recent times they have been made available online ASAP. I shall check, but the noble Lord can find them on his computer, on the intranet. The minutes will appear later on, but the decisions are available as a matter of course and, if he does not get them, he should come and tell me and I shall make sure that he does.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, may I raise one issue that is not about the door? In the joint workings that my noble friend will be taking part in, will she try to develop what I might call the spirit of comity before the two Houses? The nature, membership and workload of both Houses is different; nevertheless, we represent Parliament as a whole. Some of the other issues raised in these exchanges show that we need a better working relationship with each other. I hope, as I said, that in the spirit of comity my noble friend will be able to achieve that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not think that this is just down to me. The point has been made about having the joint department here, and other noble Lords have said how joint departments are, in many ways, a way forward. We have to ensure that we are a working Parliament, from one end of the building to the other, and the support that is available to ensure that we do our jobs properly should be commensurate with the work we do. We have the measures in place to ensure that our interests are properly represented and there is proper oversight from both Houses, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the report.
Chinese Embassy Development
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s own cybersecurity experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the city of London from the embassy. Even the Government of the United States and the Dutch Parliament have raised concerns about the presence of sensitive telecommunications infrastructure, especially cables, beneath the Royal Mint Court. Given the well-documented history of cyber-related and infrastructure-related intrusions linked to the Chinese state, does the Minister agree that planning permission should never have been granted to a Chinese embassy, for many reasons, including that the Royal Mint Court is adjacent to the Wapping Telephone Exchange, and it carries highly sensitive information?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the specific question from the noble Baroness, may I update the House? The inspector’s report was received on 10 June by the department. Parties have been notified a decision will be made on or before 9 September 2025. As the report has just been received, we have not yet begun to assess the case. The inspector’s report will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it. Until that point, neither the recommendation nor the report will be made public. I hope that update is helpful to noble Lords.
Turning to the noble Baroness’s question, because we now have the report and we will be considering it, it would not be helpful to comment on any specific security issue raised in the application while it is under active consideration by the department. However, all decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, setting out full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national policy, which is likely to include a wide variety of material planning matters that may include safety and national security.
On the specific issue of cybersecurity, as I have said, no decision has been made on the case. Ministers will come to a decision based on the material planning considerations I have referred to, in line with the established process that these cases follow.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That update from the Minister is most helpful.
We know from public warnings from the director-general of MI5 that China has been operating on an “epic scale” in its attempts to obtain political influence in the United Kingdom through educational arrangements and the use of state funds. That is why these Benches are disappointed that the Conservative Opposition have agreed this week with the Government to exempt China from the foreign influence registration scheme in respect of educational arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds.
We also know that, through its embassy in the UK, China has been co-ordinating transnational repression of people who are carrying out normal activities in the UK but who have bounties on their head. I shall not ask the Minister about any technical planning or security considerations, but what statutory provision can there be in the embassy to prevent foreign influence from the Chinese embassy on our political processes, and to help prohibit transnational repression of those living in this country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
National security is, of course, the first duty of government more generally. On the specifics of the case, the inspector’s report will consider the application against all the national, local and regional issues, according to planning policy. Safety and national security will be taken into consideration to make sure that we have considered fully all the issues that may relate to this planning application.
It is difficult to answer general questions about the relationship with China in the same space as a planning decision, which has to be taken according to a fixed process. But noble Lords should be assured that we very strongly consider national security to be our first duty.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is hard to imagine that, if in 1980 the former Soviet Union had asked for a prime site for a new mega-embassy, we in Parliament would have agreed. It is even harder for me to understand why we are doing this for a regime accused by the House of Commons of genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, one which has incarcerated over a thousand pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, including a British national Jimmy Lai, sanctions parliamentarians of both Houses—including me—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has just said, places bounties on heads of activists, including a bounty of 1 million Hong Kong dollars on the head of a young girl, Chloe Cheung, who lives in the United Kingdom. Why, in comparison with what we would have done in 1980, are we doing this now?
In the Commons, the Minister there said that the Government is open to further representations. To whom should they be made? How will they be considered? Given that the conditions set by the Government around the consolidation of Chinese consulate premises and access to the Cistercian abbey ruins on the site have both been rejected by the Chinese, how do the Government intend to address the rejection of those conditions?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a number of points and I have heard him speak many times on these issues to my colleagues from the FCDO. The Government stand firm on human rights, including against China’s repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet. Members of the Government have raised human rights with President Xi and members of the Chinese Government. We continue to co-ordinate efforts with our international partners to hold China to account.
On the issue of Jimmy Lai, I know this question has been answered before in your Lordships’ House, but we continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister raised his case with President Xi at the G20, and the Foreign Secretary raised it most recently with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in April. The Prime Minister is following Jimmy Lai’s trial closely, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific remains in regular contact with Mr Lai’s son and last met him on 28 April.
In relation to the noble Lord’s question, which I believe was about representations, representations can be made in the normal way to the Secretary of State or the planning casework unit in MHCLG. All material planning considerations will be taken into account in determining the case. If any noble Lords wish to do so, they should be directed to the Secretary of State or the planning casework team.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly outlined some of the concerns regarding the Chinese Communist regime and the way that it treats its nationals, let alone its international activities. However, international relations between states have never implied approval of those states, or indeed of their domestic regimes. They are about relations between states and that implies embassies as well. The fact is that big states have big embassies—for example, look at the US embassy south of the river. China is a big state; that is a fact. Can we dial down the rhetoric a bit?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not sure that was really a question, but I say to the noble Lord that the Government take a consistent long-term and strategic approach to managing the United Kingdom’s relations with China, which are firmly rooted in our national interest.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I had not intended to make any points on this, as I tread with care regarding accusations levelled at all Members of Parliament and community leaders who support people of Chinese heritage with whom many of us have long-standing relationships. However, following my noble friend’s question, the fallout from some of our high rhetoric and tension has an impact on the community outside. In my local area, I live alongside a large community of Hong Kong Chinese and I have had associations for 50 years with the Chinese community in Tower Hamlets and Newham, who have contributed hugely to the whole community. Will the Minister agree that, whatever the relationship is Government to Government, we must not make the communities the fifth column? I say this as someone who is Muslim and has experienced in the community the reverberations of the rhetoric in public discourse. Does the Minister agree that we need to make sure that we are extremely cautious in any condemnation of states and consider the fallout that may be experienced by the local communities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is important to reiterate that this is a planning issue and will be considered on planning grounds. However, the noble Baroness raised concerns about the Hong Kong community. In January, the Foreign Secretary and Minister West met those who were recently targeted with arrest warrants and bounties by the Hong Kong police and, in June, the Security Minister and Minister West met those recently targeted by Hong Kong police with arrest warrants. The Government will continue to stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, as Labour pledged to do in our manifesto. Freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. The UK Government will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.
I reiterate that this is a planning matter and the issues will be considered by planning Ministers against the criteria, including national security and other security issues. A decision will be taken on or by 9 September.
Spending Review 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the spending review Statement, delivered by the Chancellor in the other place yesterday, made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Treasury has lost authority in determining how the Government spend taxpayers’ money. How else can the Treasury explain a spending review in which the Government will add another £140 billion to the national bill in extra borrowing, forecast over the period set out by the Chancellor? How else can the Treasury explain a cost burden so substantially increased that the Government are unable to rule out tax rises in the autumn? How else can the Treasury explain why it is subsidising tax reductions in Mauritius, but making decisions which will limit domestic economic growth?
Ministers are lauding a spending review which does not address the fundamental issues which we have raised in your Lordships’ House many times. Only a few weeks ago, we had an excellent debate on the crisis we face in light of the scale of our national debt. This situation has been made worse as a direct consequence of the spending review. Ensuring value for money in public expenditure—another issue we have raised time and again—has been virtually ignored.
However, I thank the Minister for the long overdue investment in nuclear at Sizewell C, on small modular reactors with Rolls-Royce and on the nuclear fusion prototype in Nottinghamshire. I just hope these will not take too long. They are essential to an energy balance, so we avoid the sort of problems we have seen in Spain.
Following on from our discussions last week on the transport package, I also welcome the extension of the £3 cap on bus fares, albeit only until 2027. London-based politicians do not understand how important buses are to so many of the less well-off in this country, especially in rural areas which are bearing the brunt of this Government’s policies in other ways. The introduction of a five-year planning cycle for capital is also positive.
However, I am very concerned at the way the Chancellor has hit police spending and defence to find yet more money for the NHS. Police chiefs are very anxious, and there is still no plan to reach the 3% we need on defence. The NHS is one of the major winners from the spending review, claiming over £29 billion per year in additional funding. But unlike our Conservative record, this new money from the Labour Government has come with no productivity conditions and no demands that services be improved or patient outcomes bettered. This is a major problem. In recent years, we have seen record levels of spending poured into the health service, yet productivity has not kept pace. According to the Office for National Statistics, NHS productivity still remains below pre-pandemic levels. We have an inverse ratio: the more money the Government give the NHS, the worse it functions.
What we are witnessing is a shortage not of funding but of effective reform. The NAO and other independent bodies have highlighted how much of this new funding has been absorbed by rising costs and staff pay.
I am grateful to the Government for allowing an extra 20 minutes for Back-Benchers to ask the many questions they will have on the detail of this Statement. To be honest, I would have preferred a full debate on this, as it sets the scene on expenditure choices for the rest of the Parliament.
Moreover, in the round, the Statement is a cause for concern. As the shadow Chancellor put it succinctly, “Spend now, tax later”. The fiscal rules have been loosened so the Government can borrow more and lay out a succession of goodies in a £190 billion spending spree.
There should have been much more focus on the nearly £100 billion of interest we are now paying on our national debt and on how to get that down—a debate on how we balance the nation’s books. Investment is separated out under the fiscal rules, but I am afraid it still has to be paid for. Is this investment being wisely invested?
To mention one angle, the promised new Green Book is not a new book but the findings of a review. It concludes—as I expected, given the changes that the Conservative Government made—that the current methodology is not biased towards certain regions. However, I was surprised to read that the existing Green Book puts too much emphasis on cost-benefit ratios and that a ratio of less than one might be fine. I am really worried about this as an encouragement to the approval of white elephants.
This, of course, is against a troubling economic background. Unemployment has hit a four-year high of 4.6%. A first estimate for May showed a 109,000 decline in jobs, which, if confirmed, would be the worst month since the height of the pandemic in April 2020. Since the Spring Statement, persistently higher gilt yields have blown a £5 billion hole in the Chancellor’s £9.9 billion buffer. Productivity was 0.2% lower in the first quarter of the year compared with the same period in 2024. The UK’s total rate of investment has been the worst in the G7, on average. On top of it all, the ONS today announced a 0.3% decline in GDP growth—partly, no doubt, because of the hikes in national insurance, which have hit businesses so hard. These are facts. The Chancellor should have taken corrective action in the spending review, but we can see that more taxes and higher council tax are coming.
Finally, I will come back to the Minister on a couple of points that he keeps making. He has alleged, often and aggressively, that when many new projects were announced by the Tories, no money was provided. That is, of course, because we rightly delayed the spending round until after the election. We, like the Government, would have allocated the money for what we had planned following a classic review.
This is linked to my other concern, about which I have been very patient with the Minister: that we had and have no plans for saving money to finance necessary spending. This is an inexactitude. Apart from the strong growth trajectory at the time of the election, undermined by Labour’s doom and gloom, we were on course to reduce the public sector. Instead, the civil service has risen in the past three months to over 516,000 full-time equivalent, the highest level since 2006—in contrast, according to Civil Service World, to the total of 384,000 FTE in September 2016, when I was serving in the Conservative Government.
This Government have chosen to give pay rises to the public sector costing £9 billion—and more, if you add on the future cost of their pensions—without the kind of link to productivity that any sensible managers insist on when a generous pay package is offered. Add to that the £30 billion for the Chagos Islands, which is funding reduced taxes in Mauritius not the UK, £8 billion on Great British Energy, and the abandonment of our ambitious plans for welfare reform and our attack on waste, of which, sadly, this week’s Blue Book is a pale imitation.
The truth is that the Government are busy creating their own black hole with all of this, and it has been topped up by the £1 billion reversal in the winter fuel allowance. We all understand why that was done, but it destroys confidence in the Chancellor’s determination not to raise taxes. My fear is that we will run into the autumn with anaemic growth, persistent inflation and a large new tax bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that the Chancellor faces real constraints, and this morning’s GDP figures for April underscore the problem. However, I am not going to use this opportunity to spend a lot of time talking about growth. It is such a big issue that we need some separate debate time set aside for it.
On these Benches, we are pleased with the significant allocations for the NHS and for housing in the spending review, though we are concerned that there are no targets for social housing, since we need at least 150,000 new social homes a year. I ask the Minister: given this additional money—which I know is only £3.9 million a year, but still, it is additional money—will we see that number of social homes come through annually? That really is the need that must be met.
However, nobody will be surprised that I was disappointed—almost to the point of devastation, quite frankly—to see adult social care overlooked, with no uplift until 2028, despite the reality that the situation is grim as we speak and that, without properly functioning adult social care, improvements to the NHS will be seriously undermined. If the Casey review is the hold-up, it should be and could be completed this year.
The Chancellor also suggested that she would back the fair pay agreement for adult social care workers sought by Care England. She absolutely should—care workers deserve every penny—but did I hear correctly that she will not fund it? The total package is £2 billion a year, and just the living wage and sick pay portion is £805 million a year. That kind of money puts in jeopardy not only many care providers but many local councils. If the Minister says that there was an uplift for councils, then not only does that rely on a 5% council tax increase in most councils but the additional money will be fully swallowed up by SEND, which is also in a dire situation. Will the Minister please explain what seems completely inexplicable: the overlooking of adult social care?
I also ask for clarification on defence spending. The Chancellor said she would raise it to 2.6% by 2027—which is the right direction—but is it correct that when she spoke, she treated spending on the secret services and on the Ukraine war as defence spending? If we speak in the terms that we have all been using up to now then the 2027 spend is, in my estimate, below 2.4%. I hope the Minister will tell me I have simply misunderstood. Will he help explain what exactly is going on with this defence spending? To me, all this confusion is underscoring the importance of cross-party talks, which my party has proposed, so that we collectively find a way to reach the necessary 3% well ahead of 2034. Boy, would I appreciate some clarification on what on earth is happening within that budget.
I am pleased to see new funds for the British Business Bank, whose greatest weakness, frankly, is its tiny size. However, to which bit of its activity is the additional money to be directed? I am particularly concerned about small business lending, and it could make a serious difference if much of the new funds are directed into the BBB’s Community ENABLE fund and its growth guarantee scheme. Who will make that call, is it dedicated, and does it have a target? Could the Minister please tell us more?
I could raise a lot of other questions, but I am anxious to hear properly from the Minister. I came away from the spending review, the Blue Book and the speech asking endless questions to which I could not find answers. I thought that I was going rather brain-dead. Then, I heard Paul Johnson of the IFS talk about the documents being so opaque that he was asking questions and could not find answers. If he cannot, we need help. Could we have clarity in the future, but in the meantime could the Minister please serve as our clarity?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions on yesterday’s spending review Statement.
It would have been perfectly credible for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to say she cannot support any of this investment because she did not support any of the difficult decisions that we took to make this investment possible. It also would have been perfectly credible for her to come here today and say she has changed her mind, now supports the difficult decisions that we took and therefore will support the investment that those difficult decisions have permitted.
Unfortunately, the noble Baroness did neither of those things. We heard her support for the huge amounts of spending we announced yesterday for the nuclear programme—for example, £30 billion into nuclear. We heard her support the £3 bus fare cap, even though her party had refused to fund it any longer than last December. Yet she has opposed every difficult decision every time we have stood here for almost a year now. She has opposed every single difficult decision we have taken to repair the public finances and fund the public services. Even today, she was opposing the changes to the fiscal rules that enabled the additional investment spending we have made. She supported the nuclear spending, which is investment spending, but she opposed the fiscal rule change that enabled that spending. That simply is not credible.
The party opposite cannot support the investment in the spending review without supporting the money to pay for it. We all know exactly how we ended up with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is exactly the approach that Liz Truss took in her mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates spiralling. We will not be repeating that mistake. The shadow Chancellor is distancing himself from the Liz Truss approach, and the noble Baroness should distance herself from that approach too. She talked about the money that is being allocated. I am not sure she understood the process of the spending review: the envelope was set by the Chancellor last spring. She cannot say in any way that we have lost control or are deviating from that envelope, because the Chancellor allocated every single penny of that envelope and not a single penny more. I fully understand what she is saying—that she understands that—but, in that case, I do not understand why she made the criticisms she did. The Chancellor was simply allocating the envelope that she set out in the spring.
The noble Baroness also said that the last Government delayed the spending review. We all know why the last Government delayed the spending review: because their sums did not add up. They had a £22 billion black hole at the heart of it, and they knew that the moment they did a spending review that black hole would be revealed. That is the reason why they delayed the spending review.
The noble Baroness talked about growth and the performance of the economy. In the first quarter of this year, the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Under the forecasts inherited from the previous Government, this year the UK would have been the slowest-growing economy in the G7. If she wants to compare growth stats, I am more than happy to do that with her all day. The figures out today show that April was a challenging month, given global headwinds. That was the month in which the tariffs were imposed by the US, and it was before we had agreed the trade agreement with the United States. If you dig into those growth figures, you can see that a lot of it is driven by a decline in exports because of that. It underlines the need to continue to deliver on our growth mission.
The noble Baroness talked about facts. The facts are that living standards are now forecast to grow four times faster than in the previous Parliament. Real wages have already grown by more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. She often talks about productivity and GDP per capita, but GDP per capita fell in the last Parliament. It is now forecast to rise by 5.6% in this Parliament. On top of that, the IMF has upgraded our growth forecast, as did the OBR in the Spring Statement.
It is disappointing to me that the noble Baroness often says that she and I agree on growth, but she did not mention any of the growth-boosting measures included in this spending review. She did not mention that capital spending would increase growth by 1.4% in the long term. She did not mention the £39 billion affordable homes programme, which is vital for growth. She did not mention the record amounts of R&D funding rising to £22 billion a year. She did not mention any of the major rail projects to connect our towns and cities and make sure that growth is felt right throughout the United Kingdom. She did not mention the skills budget and the amount of money we are spending on skills. It is disappointing that she says she supports growth but then does not welcome or mention any of the investment that we are doing to get that growth.
The noble Baroness mentioned borrowing and the public finances. Average borrowing in this Parliament will be 2.8% of GDP, compared with 5.6% of GDP over the previous 14 years. She talked about the investment rule. Obviously, we have changed that fiscal rule—quite rightly—to enable the much-needed investment infrastructure to deliver stronger growth in the future. She opposes that change to that fiscal rule and yet somehow also claims to support the investment that the rule brings about.
The noble Baroness talked about tax. Yesterday’s spending review allocated the envelope set out by the Chancellor in the spring. These record settlements have been made possible only by the tough but necessary decisions we took in the Budget last October. On future decisions on tax and spending, I am not going to write four years’ worth of Budgets at this moment, even if that was in my power. The independent OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the Budget. The Chancellor will take decisions at that point based on that forecast, and I will not prejudge those now.
The noble Baroness asked me about funding of the winter fuel during Question Time earlier. As she knows, we will set that out in full at the time of the Budget.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, both asked about defence. As the Chancellor made clear yesterday, increasing defence spending is a strategic necessity, and that is why we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the precise definitions: 2.5% will absolutely be the case by 2027. If she wants to include the intelligence agency spending and the other spending she mentioned, it is 2.6%, but it is 2.5% excluding those things—I can give her that absolute certainty. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, but we will not be putting arbitrary dates on when we will meet that.
I have two final points: the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about efficiency and productivity. This is the first zero-based review done into spending for 18 years. The previous Government had 14 years to do a zero-based review, if they really cared about efficiency in public spending, and they did not do one at all over the course of 14 years.
The noble Baroness did not mention any of the reforms we are doing in the NHS. In fact, she sounded quite sceptical of additional money going into the NHS, which is a great shame as we know it is the most treasured public service in this country. She did not mention digitisation, for example—putting £10 billion into the NHS app to make it far more efficient in its spending. We are doing a great deal more on efficiency savings. All departments have identified at least 5% savings and efficiencies by 2028-29.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about social care. I am grateful to her for welcoming some of the other additional spending, particularly on the NHS and housing, for example. She talked about social housing: we have made the £39 billion investment into the affordable homes programme. That is crucial for growth, as she said.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, who has consistently campaigned on social care. The spending review provides an increase of over £4 billion available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26. That includes an increase to the NHS’s minimum contribution to adult social care via the better care fund, in line with the Department of Health’s spending review settlement. This will support the sector to improve adult social care, with further details to be set out shortly.
The noble Baroness asked about the fair pay agreement. As the Chancellor said yesterday, we remain committed to delivering a fair pay agreement in line with our manifesto commitment, and we will set out further details of that shortly. She also asked about the British Business Bank. There will be an increase to £25.5 billion, and it will set out further details as to how that will be allocated. In the industrial strategy in a few weeks’ time—access to finance is obviously a major issue for all those sectors—we will set out how the British Business Bank can help with those access to finance issues.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I also wish my noble friend Lord Livermore a very happy, significant birthday.
Communities across the country were told for years that they would be levelled up. In practice, regional investment plummeted and long-promised schemes were downgraded or pulled entirely. Does my noble friend agree that while it will take time for people to see the results of regional investment, the money allocated to English city regions and the devolved authorities will enable long-term schemes that provide jobs and growth and are genuinely transformative?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her kind words and her good wishes. I absolutely agree with her. One of the central themes of this spending review is making sure that growth is both created in all parts of the country and felt in all parts of the country. For too long, we have been reliant on just one or two regions of our country to generate that growth. Clearly, given our growth mission and the importance of raising sustainably the level of growth in this country, making sure that every part of the country contributes to that economic growth is absolutely vital.
On the regional investment that my noble friend talks about—in particular the transport investment that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to—the previous Government made lots of grand plans but never funded any of those grand plans. What we are doing here is setting out a very careful strategic plan to connect our cities, connect our towns to our cities, and funding that fully, so that those transport connections are made and people are able to get around cities and regions, which is absolutely vital to economic growth. It is no good having the jobs, the skills, the towns and the housing if they are not connected and people cannot travel around to them. I think that is an absolutely vital part of getting growth throughout the country.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding the welcome moneys for the repair of cultural venues, the cuts overall to the arts are hugely disappointing. This will affect most the individual freelancer, who really had high hopes that finally there would be reinvestment in their sector. Of course, small and large organisations will be affected, too. So I ask the Minister, would he agree with me that these cuts make no sense, considering the Government have earmarked the creative industries as the linchpin of growth? They do not seem to grasp the vital role—a role in innovation—that the subsidised arts sector plays in the ecology of the creative industries as a whole. Neither is the 15% cut to staffing within the DCMS, while such cuts are not happening everywhere, a vote of confidence in the sector, so the Government do need to rethink these cuts.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know that he is a passionate and long-standing campaigner for the cultural sector. As outlined in the spending review yesterday, the DCMS will invest more than £2.9 billion across its entire capital programme to safeguard and modernise cultural and heritage institutions in towns and cities. I hear very much what he says about the wider cultural sector and I ask him to wait for the creative industries industrial strategy sector plan, which will be coming out shortly and which I hope will address many of the issues that he is talking about. As he says, we absolutely recognise the enormous value, both cultural and economic, that the creative industries offer. We will be setting that out in the sector plan for the industrial strategy in the coming weeks and I hope that we can discuss it at that point.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, there are things to welcome in the spending review: I would point in particular to His Majesty’s Government’s steps to support the most vulnerable, tackle regional inequality, increase investment in schools, social housing and healthcare and maintain some level of support for the arts and culture, recognising their importance. More support for libraries, which act as community hubs, is welcome. I hope that the benefit of churches, which are also public buildings that contribute to community life, especially in rural areas, will also be recognised and that DCMS will do this by resolving the long-term uncertainty about the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme beyond 2026 and the capping of grants, effectively, by VAT liability.
May I press, however, the Minister on two other matters that I think are important? The first is children—our nation’s future—and investment in them. While on the surface, the increased access to free school meals is welcome, could the Minister reassure the House that the Government have not uncoupled free school meal eligibility from the pupil premium? Secondly, given the impact of the cost of living on families and the growth in child and rural poverty, which I do see even in the diocese of Chichester, especially in our coastal towns, can the Minister give assurances that the much-delayed child poverty strategy will now be published as a matter of urgency, with further consideration being given to ending the two-child limit and reviewing other policies which so adversely impact the well-being and flourishing of our nation’s young people and their families?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate set out a number of issues that he agreed with, and obviously I am grateful for his agreement with those. He talked about child poverty and he knows that—as the Prime Minister described it—our free school meals policy is a down payment on the work that we want to do to tackle and end child poverty. I was lucky enough to be part of a previous Government—I worked for a previous Chancellor—who reduced child poverty by 1 million children, so there should be no doubt about my personal commitment to reducing child poverty. I had to sit by, as did many of my noble friends, and watch the previous Government increase child poverty by 700,000. That is not something that any of us wanted to see; so he should be reassured that we absolutely prioritise this issue.
The right reverend Prelate asked about free school meals. The children of every family on universal credit will be eligible for those free school meals. He described the child poverty strategy as much delayed. I am not sure I would accept that. I think we have set out when it will come—alongside the Budget this autumn—and it will consider all the issues and representations that are put to it. There is quite a lot in this spending review to tackle child poverty. As I say, that is a down payment and I very much hope we will be able to do more.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the fact that the Chancellor reiterated yesterday, in the other place, a commitment to no unfunded increases in expenditure. Could the Minister reassure me about the other promise which she made in the autumn Budget—I am going to read it so I am not misrepresenting it—that there would be no further tax increases during the current Parliament? She said, “I will not increase your income tax; I will not increase your national insurance; I will not increase your VAT”. Does that promise still stand? How can it possibly stand with the Government’s debt interest bill now being £105 billion and rising and the costs of borrowing, because of the level of debt, actually being higher than they were at the time of the crisis under Liz Truss?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On the specific question that he asked about whether the manifesto commitments that we have given to working people still stand, yes, they still stand. The manifesto very clearly says there will be no increase in working people’s income tax, national insurance or VAT. That commitment continues to stand. In terms of future decisions on tax and spending, as I have said already, I am not going to write now—it is not in my gift to write now—four years-worth of Budgets. As he knows, the OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the Budget, and the Chancellor will take decisions at that point, based on that forecast. He can be assured, though, that, at all times, we will meet the fiscal rules, but I am not going to prejudge those decisions now.
I am not sure whether he was defending at that point the Liz Truss mini-Budget or not. He shakes his head vociferously. I do not blame him: I would not want to defend it either.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in this spending review. Can I especially welcome the £39 billion of investment in social and affordable housing that the noble Baroness mentioned earlier on? Shelter yesterday called this a game-changer. The National Housing Federation said it was the most ambitious affordable homes programme in decades. All of that is extremely encouraging. I note that the ramping up of extra funding is gradual, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned, reaching an additional £4 billion per annum by the end of the spending review period. What needs to be done as this money is ramped up in the next couple of years to ensure that this funding is generally transformational? In particular, I know he is passionate about improving the supply of skilled workers in the housing construction sector so that it really does result in the step change we all want in social housing.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right. The Government are providing the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation, and giving social housing providers the long-term certainty that they need to focus on development. We are putting in £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme. We are making a 10-year social housing rent settlement from 2026 at CPI plus 1, alongside a consultation on how to implement social housing rent convergence. We are putting in over £1 billion of new investment to accelerate the remediation of social housing. So I think that is genuinely, as he says, transformative, and I am glad that those experts in this field have welcomed that allocation.
As my noble friend said, it is a gradual increase, which is probably sensible for public finance reasons, but probably for delivery reasons too, to ensure that it can actually be implemented, but he is absolutely right to point to skills. In this spending review, we have a record allocation in terms of skills, but also, at the time of the Spring Statement, the Chancellor set out a construction skills package, which I think is vital. Clearly, not just on housing, we are doing a lot of infrastructure investment and a lot of infrastructure spending. We must have the skilled workers to do that work; I absolutely agree with my noble friend on the vital importance of skills alongside this investment.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as former chairman of the South East Wales Transport Commission and the North Wales Transport Commission. I want to make a few remarks with respect to those roles, rather than comment at this stage on the macroeconomic aspects of the Statement. I very much welcome the proposals in the spending review for the investment in rail services in south-east Wales and north Wales. My understanding is that this allocation will allow most of the recommendations of the two transport commissions that I chaired to go ahead. The new stations in south Wales will provide vital commuter rail services, connecting major housing developments to sites of potential economic growth on both sides of the border. They will provide an effective alternative to many existing car journeys on heavily congested roads and will improve opportunities for those without cars, who face serious challenges with existing public transport.
In the case of south-east Wales, much of the work has already been done to progress these technical studies for both projects. The development work is largely complete and the project is ready to go. In north Wales, there are projects identified that will also improve transport connectivity to important centres of good jobs, such as Deeside and Wrexham industrial estates, the aircraft facility at Broughton and the city of Chester. There is also, would you believe, the real possibility of connecting by train those two great football cities of Liverpool and Wrexham. Does the Minister agree that these funds should be used as soon as possible?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
In the Treasury over the past months I have heard many references to the “Burns stations”, so it is a great privilege to talk to the noble Lord himself about these stations. He is absolutely right. We are investing at least £445 million into rail enhancements over 10 years to enhance rail across Wales, including at Padeswood on the Borderlands line and through upgrades to the core valley lines, as part of the 10-year infrastructure strategy that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary will set out more details of next week.
This includes providing £48 million over four years to the Welsh Government to work with them to upgrade the core valley lines; up to £80 million for port investment to support floating offshore wind into Wales; and £2.4 million over three years to launch a new brand Wales programme promoting Welsh investment opportunities and exports around the world.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I too wish the Minister a happy birthday. In welcoming the increase in defence spending, I am sure he will acknowledge that diplomacy goes hand in glove with our ability to deliver on our defence and trade priorities. My former department has suffered the largest reductions, of over 8.3%, in both CDEL and RDEL. What assurance can the Minister give me and all Members of your Lordships’ House that important priorities such as the integrated security fund, which focuses on cybersecurity threats and counterterrorism, will be not just sustained but, in the ever dangerous world that we live in, increased?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind wishes. He is vastly more experienced and expert in these important matters of defence than I am. To answer his very specific question on the integrated security fund, the spending review settlement enables the fund to continue to deliver programmes that support the National Security Council’s national security priorities. The integrated security fund will focus on the most pressing threats facing the UK, whether posed by hostile states, instability in volatile regions or emerging cyber and technology-enabled risks.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to ask about continued funding by DfE for the music and dance scheme bursaries for talented young musicians and for the outreach work of the national centres for advanced training in dance. It is right that the Government fund schemes such as these, which ensure that dance training is not just for elites and that children from any background can access a world-leading vocational music or dance education. Can my noble friend the Minister convey to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education the need to protect and, when possible, to grow the funding of our leading pathway into music and dance careers for young people from deprived backgrounds?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will do exactly as my noble friend asks and pass that on. The important announcements yesterday that she mentions are incredibly welcome. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Chancellor also announced the dormant assets initiative to get more creative industries into more schools, so that the huge advantages and benefits of that kind of creative industry are available no longer only to privileged children but to far more children in state schools.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I can only welcome the 3% increase in NHS funding in real terms, although it is below the long-term average over decades of 3.6% increases. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation has said that this
“won’t be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments”.
With that in mind, it is disappointing that while “public services”, “public finances” and “public debt” appear in the Chancellor’s speech, there is no use of the phrase “public health”. Given that the NHS is under such pressure, surely the Government should look to decrease the demand for healthcare by improving the health of the nation, which is, compared with comparable countries, extremely poor. That would mean measures to deal with water, air and other pollution, our broken food system and the poor quality and lack of green spaces. Will the Government look at making the nation healthier to help the NHS?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes. The noble Baroness says that we are not spending enough on the health service. Over the next five years, £30 billion will be invested in day-to-day spending, with over £5 billion specifically allocated to address the most critical issues. The noble Baroness likes to tell us how she does not believe in economic growth. If we do not have economic growth, how will we find the money to fund our public services? I sat through the national insurance Bill. The noble Baroness opposed it and the additional money that it brought into our National Health Service. She says that this is not enough money. How exactly is she going to find the money? She is mouthing “wealth taxes”. If she thinks a wealth tax is going to raise that many billion pounds, I would love to see her proposals.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the capital investment contained in the spending review will be very welcome in many parts of the country. The problem will be making sure that it is money well spent. As those of us who were here in the morning heard, public bodies often are not the greatest at making sure they can build a door, let alone a motorway. How will the Government ensure that we get value for money on our projects? Just having an office called the “office for value for money” might not be enough. I was cheered that the Chancellor said the amount of money being spent on consultants had come down. Can the Minister put a figure on that and tell us what the budget for consultants over the next few years will be?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not have the specific budget for consultants over the next few years to hand. I am more than happy to write to her with that figure if it is available. She is right that we have reduced the number of consultants. It ballooned under the previous Government, who like to talk about saving money but did not always walk the walk.
We are investing an additional £113 billion in capital spending, which is enabling so many of the projects that we are discussing today. It would not be possible if we had not rewritten the fiscal rules that we inherited from the previous Government, which guaranteed neither stability nor investment. We inherited such a poor public infrastructure situation from them as they repeatedly cut investment spending to patch up the holes in their day-to-day spending. The noble Baroness mentioned the change to the fiscal rules. Alongside the fiscal rules, we have set out very clear guard-rails to ensure that that money is spent wisely and carefully through public finance institutions. I am very confident that we have set out those guard-rails and will ensure that we get the value for money that she is describing.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too wish the Minister a happy birthday, and I declare my interests.
Does the Minister recognise the damage caused to UK growth by pension funds? We have the second largest pension system in the world according to the Government, the Exchequer gross contribution is £70 billion a year, and our DB and DC schemes are no longer backing Britain and are selling or underweighting UK equities and risk assets, damaging investments and corporate financing costs. DB pension funds bulk buying annuities is driving up long-term gilt yields, which many noble Lords have mentioned, as the insurer sells the gilts they tell the pension funds to buy as soon as they take over the assets, competing with the Bank of England’s QT sales. Our economy is desperate for long-term investment. Our brilliant companies are being snapped up on the cheap by foreign owners or private equity. I believe in Britain, and the Government seem to have a clear opportunity to require pension funds, if they wish to receive these generous taxpayer subsidies, to put, say, at least 25% of their new contributions into British assets to reverse the doom loop that pension funds have created for our markets and restore some growth.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness and I, along with many others in this House, have discussed these issues many times before. I think she knows that what she wants and what I want and what the Government want are pretty much the same thing. She says she wants to see greater levels of investment by pension funds into UK assets, and that is exactly what we want to see as well. The Chancellor set out some proposals on that in her Mansion House speech last year. We have seen substantial pension fund reform announced by this Government, which should bring an additional £50 billion of investment into the UK. We have seen the Mansion House compact announced just last week—a voluntary scheme by pension fund providers to get more investment into the UK. The Chancellor will make her next Mansion House speech on 1 July. I hope this will include more interesting announcements on this regard. It will also include the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which I hope will achieve many of the things that the noble Baroness is talking about.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest: from 2018 to 2025 I was the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us how much the Government are having to spend to rectify the appalling failure of the last Government to address the prison capacity crisis and all its consequences?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the expertise that he brings to this question. In the summer of 2024, at the time of the election, prisons were operating at over 99% capacity. Clearly, the previous Government, as I was saying before, did not believe in investment spending, because they kept cutting it. Our social fabric was in a terrible state when we took over. We are having to do a lot of investment spending now to make up for the damage done over 14 years. The Government in this spending review are providing £7 billion to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, today’s growth figures make tax rises in the autumn all the more likely, but one rise that we do not have to wait for is the 5% increase to council tax each year planned for in this spending review. The Minister will know that council tax is a regressive tax. He will also know that this is the biggest increase since the 2001 to 2005 Parliament. Can the Minister confirm to the House how much a 5% growth in council tax each year will cost the average working family?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness says that we do not have to wait for it. She is absolutely correct: we do not have to wait for it because her Government introduced it. A 5% cap in council tax is something introduced by the previous Government—we have not changed that. It is a cap. Councils do not have to increase council tax by 5%, but, under the rules, they cannot increase council tax by more than 5% without a local referendum. We have not changed that. That is to invest in things such as social care, but also, as is normal, to put money into policing.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the benefits of the infrastructure expenditure are wide-ranging and indeed thrilling. However, most of those benefits are going to be long term, and I think most people are still worried about the cost of living and their day-to-day access to public services. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about how the plan is going to affect ordinary people, day-to-day?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right when she says that a lot of our capital spending is long term. I think that is perfectly right. For example, the noble Baroness earlier talked about pension funds. I met representatives of some of the largest Canadian-Australian pension funds recently, and they told me that one of the most attractive parts of the UK economic landscape at the moment is the long-termism of our policy-making. They want to see long-term commitments and long-term investment so that they can invest into this country. The long-term nature of the policies is important, but my noble friend is absolutely right that people need to see improvements in their lives much sooner than that, because obviously they have lived through the cost of living crisis brought about by the previous Government. We need to see those cost of living improvements quickly.
One of the funds established yesterday was the pride in place fund. It is important that people see improvements quickly in their local communities. We also announced funding for the warm homes plan, with a total of £13 billion allocated across this Parliament to improve the energy efficiency of people’s homes. We did a big boost to social and affordable housing, with £39 billion, and expanded free school meal eligibility in England to all children with a parent receiving universal credit. We invested more to fund childcare entitlements for working parents. We funded the freeze to prescription charges at below £10 over the spending review period, and we launched a new crisis and resilience fund to help families when in crisis.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will recall the table to the spending review which lists the departmental expenditure limits. Within that there is a line for the reserve, which I assume is essentially the contingency reserve. I recall that, back in 2023-24, the contingency reserve was over £9 billion, and that was completely blown and we had to have supplementary estimates. The table shows that, for phase 2, the reserve is at 1% of the totals for DEL and does not increase over the three years: it goes from £6.7 billion, to £6.7 billion, to £7.1 billion. This seems to be an inadequate figure for contingency that far out and is not, as one would expect, a rising figure—a wedge of contingency—in the later years. I wonder whether the Minister might explain why that wedge does not appear as one would have expected.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
If I may say so, the rising wedge, as the noble Lord describes it, is his analysis. It clearly is not analysis shared by the Government. I do not know whether it is based on any economic theory. It may be, but it is clearly not one that the Government share, because they are the numbers that the Government have set out.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most welcome aspects of the spending review is the terrific increase in science and technology spending, which will drive innovation across the country. It is long overdue, especially as it is now linked to Horizon, with an explicit reference to the building of new partnerships and new skills. I hope we can attract some of those American scientists who are now rather destabilised, shall we say, by the Trump Administration.
My question is about how housing fits into the growth agenda—it clearly does. One of the most explicit elements is the new towns programme, which is lined up not just to fill housing need but to drive housing growth and economic growth linked to infrastructure in different parts of the country where we need that growth. Can the Minister just tell me how that fits into the £39 billion now made available for affordable and social housing?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend—both where she started and indeed where she ended. I completely agree about the importance of innovation and the spending that we have been able to do in this spending review. As I have said before, the industrial strategy will be published in the coming weeks. Clearly, innovation and R&D are vital to those high-growth sectors. She also talked about the importance of partnership, and that sits at the heart of the industrial strategy—a partnership between government and business, helping to systematically remove the barriers to growth. As my noble friend will know, we have increased public funding on R&D to a record high of £22.6 billion in the spending review.
My noble friend talked about housing and its link to growth. I completely agree that, for too long, people have not been able to live anywhere near the jobs that they want to do because they have not been able to afford the housing to be close to those jobs. That is absolutely not good for growth. I am certain that the £39 billion we are investing will help us to begin to tackle that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that the Government were elected on a promise of ending the housing of refugees in hotels within 12 months of being elected to office. For what reason have the Government now decided to continue to house refugees in hotels until the end of this Parliament?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Probably because of the inheritance that we faced from the party opposite, which did absolutely nothing to tackle or fund that issue. We have funded it in the spending review on the terms that the noble Baroness set out.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in contrast to the moaning dirge we have from the Front Bench opposite, my inbox is full of emails congratulating the Government on the spending review, and from some unexpected sources, such as Liz Cameron, director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, who welcomes the Acorn carbon capture go-ahead, the defence expenditure and the Edinburgh University supercomputer. That is a great welcome, but will the Minister confirm that the money being allocated to the Scottish Government is the largest ever grant since devolution? Will he do everything he can to make sure that that money is spent efficiently, effectively and according to our priorities?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the feedback that he is receiving. He is absolutely right to highlight the incredibly important things we have done in the spending review for Scotland, such as the investment of £8.3 billion over the Parliament in homegrown, clean nuclear power, alongside establishing a new government campus for energy that draws on the world-leading engineering expertise in Aberdeen, the Acorn carbon capture and storage project that he mentioned, and £750 million for a new supercomputer at Edinburgh University. Those are all genuinely exciting developments.
As my noble friend said, this is a record settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution in 1998. They will receive £50.9 billion per year on average between 2026-27 and 2028-29, including an additional £2.9 billion per year on average through the operation of the Barnett formula and £451 million of targeted capital funding in addition. My noble friend asked how we will ensure that that is spent on our priorities. Obviously, the best way to do that is to ensure that people vote Labour at the next election.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Like my noble friend on the shadow Front Bench, I was surprised that the review suggested that a benefit-cost ratio of less than one could still be considered value for money. It also committed to publishing the BCR for all the cases. Can the Minister say when that will happen and whether it will also include projects from the NHS?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness referred to the review of the Green Book. Its six key findings were that there was insufficient emphasis on place-based objectives; ineffectiveness at assessing transformational change; continued overemphasis on benefit-cost ratios in decision-making; overly long and complicated guidance; inadequate capacity and capability across the public sector; and poor transparency around appraisal. We will set out the information that she requires in due course.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the extra nuclear expenditure in the spending review. However—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I am sorry, but it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I join the House in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday and many more of them ahead. I too welcome yesterday’s Statement. We feel as if we are turning the corner and starting to take a longer view, which we have not had expressed by politicians for quite some time. It is true that there are risks for us and, given the instability in the world, it is desirous that we are not too inflexible about how we look to change our minds as needs require it when circumstances change. I do not like to see us digging in too firmly in saying that we will not change this or that when circumstances may force it.
In looking at our tax system, investment is one of the ways in which we will see progress be made, and Statements will be made on that very shortly. One of the things the Government—and, indeed, all parties—ought to look at is the way we try to maximise opportunities for raising funds. It is high time that council tax was subject to a review. It is way out of touch with reality and is now being run very unfairly. I suggest to the Government that, as they look at wider tax reform, they look in particular at council tax and at changes to make it fairer and more productive in paying for these investments.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree very much with what my noble friend said to begin with about uncertainty. I think he was talking about the increasing global headwinds we face as a country when it comes to the economy and about the importance of stability; I completely agree with him. The IMF, for example, in its most recent report when it upgraded its forecasts for the UK economy, said that our fiscal strategy is striking a
“good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability”,
and that our
“Growth Mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity”.
On spending, it concluded that our plans are “credible and growth-friendly”, and
“are expected to provide an economic boost over the medium term”.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the points my noble friend made on council tax towards the end of his question.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned pride in place recently. It is understandable that people have pride in the place where they live. One of the indications of that is the number of volunteers who come forward to work in the Britain in Bloom scheme, but some volunteers have told me that there has been an enormous amount of vandalism, tearing apart the beautiful plantings that unpaid volunteers have made to beautify their local area and which have been much appreciated by local people. They say that part of the problem is there are not enough police on the beat and that, even when they have CCTV evidence and can identify the perpetrators, the police do not have time to do anything about it. I have heard from the police that the settlement for the police will not be adequate for the increased number of police that has been promised. Can the Minister give any cause for optimism to all those volunteers who work so hard?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she says, and I agree with her about the importance of pride in place and the difficulties around vandalism, graffiti, fly-tipping and so on. That is exactly why the pride in place fund was established: to tackle some of those really difficult local issues. When it comes to police funding, the Government increased investment in policing yesterday, and the spending power of our police will increase by 2.3% in every year of this Parliament, which is around £2 billion extra for the police. I hope the noble Baroness can take that back to the people she talks about and give them the optimism and reassurance she asked for.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I particularly welcome the extra nuclear expenditure in the spending review. However, the IFS director, Paul Johnson, said that his think tank was “baffled” by the Chancellor’s spending review. He said that the Chancellor will
“have all her fingers and all her toes crossed”,
but that OBR borrowing and growth forecasts are not downgraded for the autumn, which will
“almost certainly spark more tax rises”.
Can the Minister say whether that will be the case, or will there be more borrowing?
Secondly, supporting my noble friend Lady Altmann’s point about encouraging investment in UK-quoted equities, can the Minister give his views on how insurance companies and pension funds could be encouraged to devote more assets to the quoted areas of these markets?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord started by welcoming nuclear, and then seemed to say that the fiscal position was not what he would like it to be. I feel as if he needs to choose which lane he wants to be in in that respect. Will he support the measures we have taken and support the change to the fiscal rules, or support the spending? I am not sure that he can both oppose the way to raise the money but then support the way we are spending it.
On the second part of his question, we have set out very clear pension reform. We may not agree on that specific point, but I hope we agree on our objective, which is to get more pension fund investment into the UK economy.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable debate on the implications of adding “and others” before section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group.
Amendment 77 just asks the question: what is the effect of “and others” at the end of Clause 6(2)? Is it just to enable the insertion of Clause 6(3) or does it have wider implications that I have not noticed?
Amendment 78 is to encourage good and improving practice by making sure that what is being done is published so that it can be assessed and criticised by the local electorate, and there can be a stimulus for doing better. Amendment 81 enables the Secretary of State to enlarge on that by specifying the way in which local authorities should report on the educational achievements of children in need of or in kinship care—again, with the objective of making sure that the information is out there against which the local authority will wish to report improvements. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I support strongly this group of amendments.
Does the Minister agree that local authorities would very much welcome the positive effects of these constructive amendments? Thereby, local authority education success stories would become more visible and, as my noble friend Lord Lucas has already implied, that visibility in itself would clearly assist further improvement.
As indicated in Amendments 78, 79 and 80, this would apply to the educational achievements of children in need or in kinship care, as it also should to all previously looked-after children who were adopted.
As correctly advocated in Amendment 80, career and employment opportunities ought to be included as part of educational achievement.
Taking into account the increasing benefits from virtual education, I am sure that the Minister will concur as well that, in these and other respects, and as recommended in Amendment 83, the Secretary of State should equally now review the current and future role and remit of virtual education, so that it can become properly funded.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 80, which
“seeks to include career and employment opportunities as a part of educational achievement”.
I have spoken many times in this Chamber, and will probably do so again, about the need to ensure that we an educational system that prevents young people becoming NEET.
I will share some statistics with noble Lords. There are 354,000 young people who are unemployed and actually seeking work who are NEET, and 569,000 who are economically inactive and not seeking work. According to the Department for Education’s 2025 report, 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. I add to this that I discovered recently that 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution and 25% of the adult prison population had been in care. I have no doubt that these figures will ring alarm bells for all of us, and so they should, so what can we do about them?
The main factors that contribute to these figures—the main reason why these young people are in the position they are and NEET—are educational disruption; poor mental health and emotional well-being; lack of stable housing; limited support networks; stigma and discrimination by employers for those young people who have been in care; and inadequate transition planning when they move from education to employment. It is this last point that I will focus on. I hope that all noble Lords, including the Minister, will agree that we must have a system that prepares all young people, in particular those who have been or continue to be in care, to make an effective transition from education to work.
My first question is: can the Minister tell us what tailored and individual careers advice and coaching the Bill will put in place, working with the DWP and all its great partners, to ensure that young people get the service they need? How will the Bill bring employers into the lives of young people at a much earlier stage and dispel the negative assessment they make which keeps these young people out of the workplace? Will she please ensure that every educational establishment publishes its NEET tables, so that we can see what is working, do more of it and help those who are not doing so well? Prevention is much more effective than cure. It costs less in financial terms and puts young people on the right path. It was explained to me that it is better to be a fence at the top of the cliff than the ambulance at the bottom, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree.
One of the most enjoyable experiences I have had in this House was to be a member of the Public Services Committee, which is so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. Before I left that committee, we produced a report entitled Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Employment for Young Disabled People, but its findings, although they concern specific help for disabled people, have resonance with all young people.
The second recommendation in that report says:
“The Government should work with local authorities to improve the availability of ‘ready to work’ programmes such as that provided by ThinkForward”.
Another happy moment in my career was to develop and deliver the prototype for ThinkForward. I can tell noble Lords that it works and it can be done. It can be done in schools, where the coaches are part of the school management team. Young people at risk of becoming NEET are identified very early and get a dedicated coach who is on the journey with them. The results are that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds involved showed significant improvements in attendance; 60% of the school leavers achieved at least five GCSEs at grades A to C; and 96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds were in education, employment or training. I know that ThinkForward and other organisations would be more than happy to work with the Government, and it was a private equity foundation that put the funding model in place to make sure that it worked, so not every penny came from the Government—I hope that that might excite the Minister. So, it can be done, it must be done, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will be done.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 79 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Following the statistical barrage from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I shall give some more. According to the Drive Forward Foundation, children in care on average achieve an Attainment 8 score that is less than half of the overall pupil population. Just 14% of care leavers go on to university, compared with 47% of all young people. Some 22% of care leavers say that they always or often feel lonely, compared with 10% of all young people, and 15% of care leavers report that they do not have a good friend, compared with 5% of all adults. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after they leave care, and 52% of children in care have a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared with 13% of non-care-experienced children. One line in the Bill could achieve so much.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 83 seeks to address what is currently a series of gaps in the information that we have about the effectiveness of the virtual school head role. Clause 6 extends the statutory duties of the VSH role to children with a social worker and children in kinship care. The question is whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing and what resources are necessary to implement it effectively. As I understand it, we do not yet have the evidence that confirms the positive impact of that role, nor the emergence of value for money.
I take your Lordships to the interim evaluation, which was published in 2024. On page 11, it states:
“The evaluation of Phase Two follows a broadly cyclical pattern of data collection and analysis, alongside ongoing analysis of secondary national datasets … We assumed that there would not be only one way of providing effective support and that the aim at this stage was to support shared learning about potentially effective practice, rather than to conduct an effectiveness trial … The final report for this evaluation … will test whether there are any early signs of progress at aggregate level in attendance, persistent absence, suspension and permanent exclusion”.
I suggest to the Minister that the policy document for the Bill seems to overstate the impact. That policy document says:
“The evaluation of the extension shows early signs of improved educational outcomes … with several local authorities reporting improved attendance, reduced exclusions and enhanced collaboration between education and social care services”.
I am concerned that trends in attendance could be influenced by a range of other factors apart from the presence of the VSH. We therefore possibly have correlation rather than causation. I may have misunderstood things, but can the Minister please correct me if I am wrong?
I hope the Minister will look sympathetically at my amendment. It seeks to fill the evidence gap, both in terms of impact and in terms of resources, before extending the role of VSHs still further. Otherwise, the Government are at risk, in my opinion, of expanding and even diluting the impact of a role without the evidence that clearly demonstrates that it really can make a difference. I hope the Minister will look at this amendment sympathetically and in the spirit in which it is drafted.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 82 would provide further opportunities for children in kinship care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The Government should be applauded for their commitment to raising the profile of kinship care as a vital part of the ecosystem for children from broken families. As we heard earlier in the week from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, there are more than 150,000 children in kinship care in England. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, without whom it would be almost inevitable that the care system would buckle.
For most of Part 1 of the Bill, I have taken a back seat as I do not have direct expertise in the many complex areas that it seeks to tackle. However, for this proposal I was the Minister responsible for boarding schools, both state and private, when at the DfE. Noble Lords participating in the Bill will know what a huge task confronts kinship carers when taking on children, more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. We have heard how the level of support for kinship carers is patchy at best and often almost non-existent. For many potential kinship carers the prospect will simply be too daunting, even if they might be the best solution in a given set of circumstances.
That is why I am so keen to give much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in kinship care. Where it works for the child—and, of course, this is not always the case—it can provide a vital partnership to the carer in the upbringing of the child. At the simplest level, the day-to-day caring responsibilities for the kinship carer are reduced to around 16 weeks a year from 52 when boarding school is providing a home for the balance of the time.
I believe it is a dramatically underutilised resource. There is an unexplained squeamishness across many directors of children’s services to use it more. However, when I was the Minister in the area in 2018, we published a small longitudinal report showing just how impactful it could be. By coincidence, it was work led by Norfolk County Council, where I live, and the results were remarkable. We at the DfE then jointly published the report—it is no longer available on the DfE website, which is a shame. I urge the Minister to not only read it—I can send her a copy—but ask officials to put it back up again.
In essence, it tracked 52 vulnerable young people for between two and five years. Over that time, 33 of these young people were able to come off the risk register completely following placement in boarding school. Dr Claire Maxwell, who contributed to the report, then a reader in the sociology of education at UCL, highlighted three specific benefits. First, the setting can provide amelioration from risky emotional and physically stressful situations—for example, a circuit breaker from a local gang culture. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, a moment ago about the number of children from care ending up in prison—it is appalling. Secondly, there is improvement of educational outcomes. Thirdly, it is a more cost-effective solution than other forms of care intervention. Dr Maxwell’s view, and that of charities in the sector, was that successful boarding placements can help strengthen families experiencing significant difficulties. The longer school day that is part and parcel of boarding school life can provide a form of round-the-clock care and is part of the reason for the improved emotional and educational outcomes.
In this study, the 52 children were placed in 11 different boarding settings, a mixture of state and private provision. Some 21% of these children achieved a formal GCSE qualification in maths and English—above grade C, in old money. This compared with a national looked-after children pass rate in that year of 17.5%. These are not dramatic differences, but put alongside the substantial reduction in the numbers being removed from the risk register, it makes for a very positive story. This study also compared costs against more institutional forms of care beyond kinship. At the time of writing the report, the Norfolk Boarding School Partnership had an average cost between £11,000 and £35,000 a year, compared with £56,000 for a looked-after child in a normal or more standard setting. This translated into a saving of £1.6 million over four years for this group.
Obviously, kinship care is more affordable because carers get less support, but my argument is that if boarding was offered to potential kinship carers, the take-up would be much higher, therefore reducing local looked-after children costs. Today, the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation offers bursaries for looked-after children attending private boarding schools. We know that the educational outcomes for looked-after children remain way below the national average, and this is not a silver bullet—but, combined with the other benefits, as I have outlined, I believe it is a vital additional tool in the box to support these vulnerable children who never chose this harsh route into life. I hope the Minister will support me by agreeing to my amendment to provide more awareness of these opportunities.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to be asked to speak to Amendment 82 by my noble friend Lord Farmer, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. As well as the evidence I will refer to, I was in your Lordships’ House back in 2014 when my noble friend gave his maiden speech. A Conservative Party treasurer perhaps brings a certain stereotype to mind. However, you could have heard a pin drop, as a globally successful metals trader spoke of being a young teenager in a chaotic home with an alcoholic single mother. But he went to the boarding house at the state-run Wantage Grammar School. It rescued him.
It made me reflect on the role of boarding schools. I was born and bred in Oakham and I have had to deal for many years with the annoyance of, “You’re from Oakham? So you went to Oakham School, then?” “No”, I reply, “there is a state comprehensive as well in the town, called Catmose College”—which was rated “outstanding” in every category in an Ofsted inspection in 2024, if noble Lords will forgive the shoutout for my state school.
This testimony by my noble friend is supported by the 2023 study by the University of Nottingham’s School of Education, commissioned by the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which found that children in or on the edge of care who attend state boarding or independent schools experience significant educational and financial benefits. They are four times more likely to achieve good GCSE passes in English and maths and five times more likely to pursue and succeed in A-levels, leading often to higher education. The study estimates that, for every 100 children attending boarding schools, lower social care costs and increased future earnings mean there is an economic return on investment of approximately £2.75 million. The report stated that, when vulnerable children in boarding schools were interviewed, they said such opportunities were life-changing.
This amendment would also make it significantly easier, as my noble friend Lord Agnew outlined, for kinship carers to step forward to offer a home to a child who might otherwise enter the state care system. Not every family will want or be able to house the child 24/7, 365 days a year. That can be a daunting task. They know of course that their own children will be greatly affected, and their house might not be big enough for that extra child. Kin altruism can be greatly aided and encouraged when a child can be educated in this way in the state boarding sector, giving the carer breathing space to attend to all their other responsibilities, while knowing that the child is safe and cared for in the state boarding sector. I hope the Minister will look at the evidence carefully in relation to this matter.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have no amendments in this group, but we are very sympathetic to them. When you look at all the statistics for children in care, your heart goes out to those young people, and we should do everything humanly possible to help them, develop them, encourage them—and any other adjective you can think of.
I will deal with a few of the amendments. First, I want to deal with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. He may not know Liverpool College, but it is a very successful independent school with a dynamic head teacher, a Dutch American who came to England and did two things. First, he made Liverpool College an academy, and then he decided to make a boarding facility available. He came to an agreement with the local authority that he would offer a percentage of the places to children in care. The results have been spectacular. It is a model that should not be shunned for party-political reasons—“We are not in favour of independent schools or boarding schools”—but should be welcomed, embraced and encouraged.
Secondly, I want to make a point about Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. Again from personal experience, not only did we create a virtual school in Liverpool, but the then director of education, Colin Hilton, said, “I am going to be the virtual parent of these children”. He set up a steering committee of children in care in the local authority and he met with them once a month to hear their issues and their problems. Some might think this was flag waving, but, by taking on that role, he nailed his colours and the colours of the local authority to the mast, and again the results were amazing.
I am in favour of all sorts of information being made available, because it is only by getting information that you know what you have to do and how you can achieve it. Surprisingly, I am the chair of Liverpool’s education, employment and training scrutiny committee; the Labour authority has made a Lib Dem the chair of two of its select committees. The local authority sets a series of targets, and for education those are obviously training, employment and so on. In each quarter, we look at the results next to the targets we hoped to achieve, and I was surprised that children in care were not separated in those figures. I asked for the figures to be separated and that has now happened, so you can track the progress that those children in care are making.
So all these amendments, in one way or another, can only help to further the support that we as a nation want to give to those children in care. On the question of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, again, why not? All these issues are important, so I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 79, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and Amendment 80, in the name of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. While we are of course positive towards efforts that support children with a social worker, those currently and previously looked after and those in kinship care, we question why adopted children are excluded from His Majesty’s Government’s plans to strengthen the role of the virtual school head.
Our Amendment 79 would clarify the role of the virtual school head to ensure that those children in the care of the local authority who are then adopted receive the same support as children with a social worker or those in kinship care. Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to
“make advice and information available in accordance with this section for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of each relevant child educated in their area”.
Clause 6 of the Bill introduces a duty on a local authority to take
“such steps as it considers appropriate”,
which is a much broader role but one that currently does not appear to include adopted children.
As the helpful briefing from Adoption UK sets out, almost half of adoptive parents surveyed for its 2024 Adoption Barometer had sought advice from their local virtual school in the preceding year. The report highlighted the variability in support that they received and the value they placed on the advocacy that a virtual school head could provide with their child’s school. Their exclusion from the Bill appears inconsistent, and we would be grateful if the Minister could confirm either that adopted children will be included or, if they will not be, why not.
Amendment 80 seeks to include career and employment opportunities for children as part of educational achievement. The number of young people who are unable to find employment or further training when they finish their education is alarmingly high. The ONS estimates that 923,000 individuals aged 16 to 24—12.5%—were not in education, employment or training in the period January to March 2025. Although that is down on the previous quarter, I think all noble Lords would agree that the number is way too high and we must act to reduce it.
Amendments 78 and 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to require that authorities publish the steps they have taken to promote the process undertaken that has resulted in the educational achievement of the children in need or in kinship care, and that the Secretary of State may specify how this is reported. It is important for successful practices to be shared, and the amendment would ensure that performance can be more accurately measured.
Amendment 82, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Agnew and Lord Farmer, seeks to provide boarding school places to children in kinship care. The noble Lords raise a most interesting point. It clearly worked very well for the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Where it works for a child—and that is obviously critically important—it can be a hugely positive experience. That child may have the ability to immerse themselves in education, sports, arts or drama, away from the distractions or dangers that they have previously experienced in their outside school life. It would lessen the time pressures on kinship carers, who we know do an amazing job but often find there are simply not enough hours in the day. We would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the work done by Norfolk County Council, the issues it encountered and how it addressed them. We look forward to discussing this further, and hope the Minister will do so also.
Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, seeks to review virtual school heads and their role in improving educational outcomes for previously looked-after children. There is not yet sufficient evidence to fully analyse the extent of the improvement from the introduction of virtual school heads. As such, this review would certainly help to understand the impact that virtual school heads have had before full implementation. We very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.
In line with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, these all seem entirely sensible and well thought out amendments.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important area of the Bill. I think, hand on heart, we all know that children who need a social worker and children in kinship care experience significant difficulties. Many of them have poorer educational outcomes than their peers as a result, across all key stages. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right that it is important that everyone shares their experience. In Leeds, we always made sure that the scrutiny of children’s services was held by an opposition member; that seems to make absolute sense. We all want the best for these young people, and we must make sure that every area is fully scrutinised.
Clause 6 aims to confer statutory duties on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of such children, increasing their visibility, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and ensuring that they receive consistent expert support to improve their outcomes. In practice, these duties will be discharged by the virtual school head, who will have strategic oversight of the outcomes of these children, raising awareness and improving visibility of their needs—for example, through the delivery of training to schools in effective strategies for improving outcomes. We have just received more information about why this information is so important. For example, it will mean having a real understanding of the numbers of young people who experience school instability, placement instability or social work instability—all of which contribute to their experience in learning and their ability to achieve going forward. As well as this, virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, upon request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangements orders, regardless of whether their child spent time in care. We know that virtual heads were first introduced on a non-statutory basis, and we recognise the need for a much stronger basis. I echo the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the importance of local authorities in making sure that this moves forward successfully.
As I say, I welcome the spirit of the amendments tabled, which would ensure that virtual school heads work on behalf of all children, while ensuring that local authorities are rightly held accountable for the delivery of their duties. They would also ensure that previously looked-after children adopted from state care are not inadvertently disadvantaged as a result—I will come back to say more on that later. We are confident that the measures in this clause meet these aims and that, as a result, these amendments are not necessary. I will go into more detail later.
Amendment 77, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to enable discussion on which children are eligible for local authority support and how virtual school heads will promote their educational outcomes. Providing clarity on the children to whom the virtual school head role is extended is important. New Section 23ZZZA(2), to be inserted by Clause 6, provides a clear definition of these children. Specifically, they are children for whom the local authority is
“providing or has provided services”
under Section 17(10)(a) or (b) of the Children Act 1989, as well as children
“in the authority’s area who live in kinship care”.
Amendments 78 and 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to place a statutory duty on local authorities to publish a report on how they perform in promoting the educational outcomes of these children, and to specify through regulations what local authorities must report on. Transparency and consistency in local authority support are essential for driving improvements, and for ensuring that decisions are made in the child’s best interests and that every child receives support, wherever they live or are educated.
Statutory guidance already requires virtual school heads to publish an annual report summarising strategies for supporting children in their care, while local authorities are held to account through inspections of local authority children’s services. It is vital that we continue to ensure local authorities are held accountable for all children they are responsible for, and that this support is transparent. We will reinforce this accountability by updating statutory guidance to include reporting on strategies for supporting educational outcomes of children in need and children in kinship care. This will ensure greater consistency across all local authorities, enabling continuous improvement in the support provided while allowing for local and regional variations. This Government are committed to ensuring that previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption are supported to succeed in education.
Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that children adopted from local authority care benefit from the same support that the clause extends to children in need and children in kinship care. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his statistics; it is always useful to have that level of granularity in our discussions.
To repeat, local authorities already have a statutory duty under Section 23ZZA of the Children Act 1989 to promote the educational achievements of all previously looked-after children who have left care through adoption, special guardianship or child arrangements orders. I hope that satisfies the questions that the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. In addition, subsection (3) of Section 23ZZA allows the local authority to
“do anything else that they consider appropriate with a view to promoting the educational achievement of relevant children educated in their area”.
I would suggest that that level of flexibility adds a great deal in the particular circumstances of each individual child.
The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing legislation sufficiently covers these children’s educational needs. However, we are committed to reviewing and revising the sections on promoting the educational outcomes of previously looked-after children in statutory guidance for virtual school heads. There is no room for complacency here; we have to keep revisiting, refreshing and relooking on behalf of all the children we are talking about. This will present an opportunity to further strengthen sections on support for adopted children, and we will work with the adoption sector on this, including by clarifying and reinforcing the interpretation of the duty and incorporating examples of good practice.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am very grateful for the comprehensive and courteous way that the Minister has responded to the amendments. Can she comment on the need, as I see it, for some sort of report back to Parliament?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
With all this work, I believe it is important that we focus on the job in hand through the route of accountability and the local authorities, and do not give virtual school heads yet another onerous task to do. I believe that enough safeguards are in place and enough ways that the outcomes can be reviewed, so I do not believe that this is necessary at this time.
I was going to say that I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments, based on the fact that this is work in progress. We all know the significance of this area and the contribution that so many people make to it. We are opening up an exciting new chapter to make sure that the work that happens is accountable and transparent, and that more people are aware of what needs to be done and how these young people can be helped going forward.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for what I thought was a really satisfactory set of responses to these amendments, and I thank her for that. Will she commit, when the evaluation and the statutory guidance are published, to giving a heads-up to those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this area during this debate?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have a feeling that I would not have any other option, given the comments I have received to date.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I shall be very grateful for that. I hope the Minister will also have a quiet word in the ear of her colleagues responsible for the Employment Rights Bill, referring to the speech of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott in particular. When an employer wants to take on someone who has a history in care, they know that this may be a difficult experience for them. As it is at the moment, the Employment Rights Bill makes that much more dangerous and difficult. It is a matter of casting the rules right, but the Government have not got there yet. This is really important in making sure that children from a care background can find their way into employment, that an employer can take on someone they know is going to be difficult and have time to bring them through, and that the regulations are set right to make that happen.
I encourage the Government to encourage local authorities to use boarding schools where this is appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Agnew said, this is something that can save money and make for a better outcome for the right children. I ask that, where this is done, we track performance. We ought to build up, not just as one experiment but as a routine, a history of how these children have done with that experience, so that we can all learn who it works for and how it works best, and the schools concerned can learn from each other how to do better. There is a real wish in the independent sector to be part of this, and I very much hope it will be included.
I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this group of amendments, half of which are in my name. Before I go on to them, I will say a word about yesterday’s spending review. I apologise that I could not be here for my noble friend Lord Livermore’s session, just before we started the Bill.
There was significant spend announced yesterday on wider children’s social care. The review stated:
“This settlement will improve support for England’s most vulnerable children and young people by setting aside £555 million over the SR period from the Transformation Fund for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government … and DfE, as well as total capital investment of over £560 million to reform the children’s social care system and support the refurbishment and expansion of the children’s homes estate. This will help more children and families stay safely together, expand support for care leavers and fix the broken care market”.
It obviously remains to be seen how that will shake down, but I think it is a very promising start and a real indication of how seriously the Government view the current situation as far as the children’s social care sector is concerned.
In its present form, the Bill extends Staying Close support only to young people up to the age of 25—that is for any relevant child in residential care—but not Staying Put support for those former relevant children who are living in foster care. The increased support that the Bill provides for care leavers is welcome, but it risks creating a two-tier system for care leavers in residential and foster care. More needs to be done for young people in foster care who want to remain with their foster family beyond the age of 21. The amendments in my name in this group seek to extend entitlement up to the age of 25, with proper funding. I suggest that the figures I have just quoted would be a suitable source for at least part of that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Watson, having attached my name to all the amendments in this group that include extending Staying Put support for young people up to the age of 25. The noble Lord has already made the case very well, so I will not repeat all the stats and the recommendations that we had from the MacAlister report et cetera, but it is worth reflecting on how hard it is today for young people to be independent at the age of 21. The Office for National Statistics report last year showed that, across our society, the average age at which a child moves out of their family home is 24. Surely the state should also be providing the kind of care that children are getting in families.
I also have a genuine question that I have not been able to establish the answer to. These amendments and the Government’s plans cover both children in foster care and those in institutional arrangements. My understanding is that about 40% of 17 year-olds are staying in unregulated or independent accommodation, and it would appear that at the moment they are falling through the cracks and not being covered by either these amendments or what is happening here, so I would like to ask the Minister whether that is indeed the case and whether the Government have plans to act on that.
It is perhaps worth setting out the kind of story of what is happening now, which I doubt anyone in this Chamber would disagree is unacceptable. Last year the Big Issue reported on the case of a young man called Duncan, who was in care with a foster family that he had been with since age 11. He came home from college one day and found that all his bags had been packed up. It was a week after he turned 18. The foster carers were happy for him to stay, but social services simply said that was not an option and could not happen, and packed his bags up. Think about how utterly damaging that would be. Duncan was then put into supported accommodation. At 3 am the next morning, someone was knocking on his door looking for somebody else. There was drug dealing happening all around him. He had a bottle flung in his face by someone who was trying to throw it to someone else in that supported accommodation. That is what the state, as a corporate parent, is doing to a child at the age of 18. There are some places where some people are able to stay, but surely that should be the absolute standard provision. We need the parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, which is what these amendments would achieve.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to lend my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, regarding extending the Staying Put scheme to the age of 25. My Amendment 130 does exactly the same thing but for some reason is in the next group. I will say a few words about it when we get to the next group, but I just want to underline my support. I think it is a very important issue.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164 to introduce a national offer for child care leavers. This is strongly recommended by Barnardo’s because this amendment would end the postcode lottery of support for care leavers and help remove barriers to opportunity. Each year around 13,000 young people leave care without the support they need, and the outcomes of these young people remain much lower than those of their peers. That is why we at Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—believe that there should be a new minimum standard of support for care leavers: a national offer regardless of where they live. It should include measures recommended by Barnardo’s, which I hope the Government and the Minister will agree to.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97 and 99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. His support for Amendment 99, and mine, is grounded in—
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and Amendment 164 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I am a retread, a hereditary Peer who originally came here not very long ago, in 1981, left in 1999 and was recycled, like an old tyre, in 2014. I made my first maiden speech in 1982 and my second in 2015, on the subject of Staying Put. At that time the Minister for Children was the rather wonderful Edward Timpson, the younger brother of the Department of Justice Minister here. He had grown up in an extraordinary family. Apart from having full-blood siblings, while he was growing up his amazing parents fostered more than 90 children. So Staying Put was put in place by an individual who had a deep understanding of the issues faced by young people unfortunate enough not to be able to live with their natural or even unnatural parents. Staying Put was a result of that. The debate in 2015 was to welcome the fact that it had been extended, having been deemed such a success.
It is very fitting that now we have another Timpson in government, albeit in a different department, we again look at this and recognise how successful it has been. What we are asking for in this amendment will not involve a vast number of children or a vast amount of money. It will, however, be transformative for that small number of children. In economic terms, the benefits of giving them support up to the age of 25, if they need it, will be more than repaid by some of the problems that might cost rather more if they have to leave earlier. For all those reasons, I request that the Government look at this sympathetically and see how it can be fitted in.
On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, in so many parts of our society there is a postcode lottery. That is not surprising given how the highly centralised country of England, with all roads leading to London, coexists with a piebald mosaic of different local authorities and different organisations of all kinds, which to some extent relish the English creative impulse to reinvent the wheel in your own image. As a result, there is considerable variation. If you asked a variety of organisations providing support for those in care or coming out of care to define succinctly, in two or three minutes, exactly what their care offer was, you would get rather different answers.
For those reasons, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, it would be very beneficial to have clarity about the core elements of the offer and to do everything one can to make sure it is understood and, as far as possible, complied with across the country.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 164 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. I omitted to declare my interests as a teacher and a kinship carer, but your Lordships probably know of those by now.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 94 in this group. It is very much the same as my amendments in the last group. If we can get local authorities to say clearly what they are doing and what they have achieved in a year, then they will wish to do better next year.
Lord Storey (LD)
I just want to say a few words, especially in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I remember that 14 years ago this issue was discussed during consideration of the Children and Families Bill. We all sort of huffed and puffed and said, yes, this is really important, but nothing came of it. I just wish we had seized that opportunity then. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, rightly said, we do not want to make this a missed opportunity. Some young people are ready to leave, but many are not. If you look at the figures for young people who are not in care and not fostered—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned 24 year-olds—sometimes we see people in their 30s still living at their parents’ home. What happens in those families should be reflected right throughout our society. Sometimes young people are not emotionally ready. We heard of “pack the bag and go”, but I can tell of the opposite: foster parents, at their own cost and in their own time, being prepared to keep on their foster children for several years afterwards. That is amazing.
I turn to the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Having each local authority publish what its national care offer should be seems such an obvious thing to do. I just hope that the Government will seize this opportunity and do that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85, 89, 92 and 93 in my name. Clause 7 introduces new requirements for local authorities in England to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 need Staying Close support; and when such support is deemed necessary, the local authority must provide it. This provision builds on the Staying Close pilot scheme, which gives care leavers safe and secure accommodation along with a trusted adult relationship for emotional and practical support. I am very grateful to the charity Become for sharing its expertise in this area with me. As the Minister knows, each year thousands of young people face what we might describe as a care cliff edge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, vividly described, when they leave the system, they are expected to leave home at around 18—often abruptly but, I hope, not always as abruptly as in the case she described—losing vital relationships and support when they most need help transitioning to adulthood.
Research by Become shows that
“the transition from care to ‘independent living’ is often poorly planned and managed, and many young people feel unsupported”.
Evidence from the Staying Close pilots demonstrates
“improved outcomes for care-experienced young people … including better ‘independent living’ skills, increased happiness, better stability, increased participation in … education and employment; and a reduced risk of homelessness”,
and that extending Staying Close support to age 25 will benefit thousands of young people leaving care. We warmly welcome that.
However, we have concerns about the drafting of Clause 7, which could limit its impact. First, Clause 7(2) requires local authorities to assess whether Staying Close support serves the young person’s welfare, but without providing specified assessment criteria. We worry that this could lead to the rationing of support or a postcode lottery. Our Amendment 85 seeks to address that by explicitly setting out the factors the local authority must have due regard to, including the
“wishes and preferences … accommodation requirements … emotional and practical support needs … and existing support network”
of the young person. Our ever-optimistic Amendment 92 would give the local authority flexibility to offer additional support where it is judged to be appropriate.
The current wording defines Staying Close support merely as providing advice and information or making representations to help with accommodation and services. The Minister will know that “making representations” does not always translate into a service. That narrow definition does not reflect the comprehensive support that was offered in the pilots, so our worry is that it will not achieve the same positive outcomes that the pilot did.
Our Amendment 89 aims to strengthen the voice of young people and ensure that a record of their wishes is kept. The Bill does not reference young people’s wishes and preferences. We believe, and I know that the Minister agrees and has been a great leader in this, that young people’s input is vital when determining support.
Lastly, our Amendment 93 gives a strong legal entitlement to an opt-out for all care leavers, ensuring young people’s preferences guide decisions about their support and create consistent assessment criteria. I very much hope the Minister agrees that these are reasonable and practical amendments that the Government could turn into their own.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, very generously pointed out the response of the previous Government and put the case for extended Staying Put support extremely ably. I am sympathetic to the spirit of his amendments; indeed, he or another noble Lord mentioned that, when asked, 75% of children said that they would like to go on living with their foster parents beyond the current limitations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that. I am also sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 94. Having clarity and good performance-management data should always lead to better outcomes.
I feel rather mealy-mouthed not to be more enthusiastic about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164. I absolutely do not want to sound preachy, but I worry. Of course it is extremely important that information is accessible and easily accessible, but, as we often discuss in your Lordships’ House, some of that comes from the culture and the attitude to young people in care and the relationships that we have with them. I suppose my only hesitation is that information without relationships does not get us much further, but I know that all noble Lords know that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, in responding to these amendments, I start by re-emphasising that we all know that care leavers have some of the worst long-term life outcomes in society and that many have not received the care and support that we would want and expect for them. We are committed to ensuring that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong, loving relationships, and are engaged in education, employment and training. The ongoing work and the measures in Clause 7 are geared to improving outcomes for those eligible and will help address any cliff edge of support they may face when leaving care.
On Amendments 84, 86 to 88, 90 and 91 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I thank him for highlighting the issues and for going through the background so thoroughly, but also for highlighting the very positive measures that were announced in the spending review yesterday. We look forward to further detail on how this will feed through into supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society.
These amendments together would require local authorities to provide former relevant children under the age of 25 with Staying Put support where their welfare requires it. They seek to probe why the Bill makes provision for Staying Close support to be offered to eligible care leavers up to the age of 25 when the Children Act 1989 puts duties on local authorities to support former relevant children and their former foster parents to maintain a Staying Put arrangement until the former relevant child reaches the age of 21.
I acknowledge the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; of course, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case but I am sure that many of us in this Chamber could put our minds to similar extremely stressful and difficult examples that are based on the real experience of some young people. That is exactly why we have the Bill before us and what we are trying to achieve with it.
We fully recognise the importance of these duties and remain strongly committed to the Staying Put arrangements. But, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as well as my noble friend Lord Watson, we believe at this moment that it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support, in particular for young people transitioning into independent living, including those who may have been in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. It is difficult to have to prioritise and focus, but this is the place we are in at the moment.
We are doing this very positive work through the introduction of Clause 7, where all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those in or who have left a Staying Put arrangement, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. Staying Close support includes support to find and keep suitable accommodation, and support to access wraparound services.
On Amendments 85, 92 and 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I start by reassuring her that we agree with the sentiment of the amendments and that Clause 7 is already very much in that spirit. We are very keen, of course, to make sure that everything we do links and aligns with the different opportunities: for example, how we can bring pathway plans into the mix and make sure that there is a seamless direction of travel. There will be more to discuss on this as we go forward, as I understand she acknowledges.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister sits down, I asked about the fact that, apparently, 40% of 17-year-olds turning 18 are in unregulated or independent accommodation. Could the noble Baroness perhaps write to me about that?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I apologise: I knew that I had missed the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, of course I will write on that important point.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the difference between the answer she gave on the last group and the answer she gave on my amendment in this one. Channelling the reporting through guidance to the virtual school head is doing something that would be immediate, current and present and would affect the day-to-day way in which a local authority and its team conduct their business; something that may or may not appear in the depths of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective. I encourage the Minister, between now and Report, to consider whether it would not be much better for the continual improvement of the Staying Close services if they were reported on annually and personally by the team responsible for delivering them, so that it becomes much more visible and a much more current thing for them to keep improving, rather than something that they hope will get lost in whatever else Ofsted is saying about the local authority as a whole.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, both of whom spoke forcefully in support of the amendments—which may not be surprising, since they added their names to them, for which I also thank them. I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the point she raised about 16 and 17 year-olds living in unregistered accommodation, that there will be an opportunity to debate that in group 8 today, if we get that far.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, although, of course, it is disappointing. I noticed a nuanced difference in her response—if she will forgive me, it could probably be described in three words, “We’re staying put”, which is effectively what she said—whereas her opposite number in the other place said that the Government were not in favour of extending Staying Put because they wanted to concentrate on young people in residential care, who, she said, had the most complex needs. My noble friend today said that the Government want to concentrate on filling the gaps in current provision. Neither is unimportant, but I think that, where there are gaps in current provision, yes, they can be filled, but that does not mean that there are no gaps in the provision beyond the age of 21 for young people Staying Put.
My noble friend said that, when people in foster care reach the age of 21 and leave for whatever reason, they will have Staying Close to fall back on in certain situations, and of course that is right. But, overall, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people who want to stay on in foster care beyond the age of 21. We are not talking about thousands and thousands, so the cost in additional resources required to do that is relatively modest. I have to come back to the point that I started off with, which is that there was a very positive statement yesterday in the spending review, which may offer the opportunity to deal with this as well, although of course there will be many competing demands.
As I said, it is disappointing. I request the opportunity of discussing this issue a little further with my ministerial colleagues before Report, but I again thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“(2A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) financial literacy and financial support.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a requirement on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide to support care leavers to develop financial literacy and to better understand their financial entitlements as part of their Local Offer for Care Leavers.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 95 and 130 in my name, and in doing so I draw attention to my interest in the register as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission. I think the amendments in this group are very important. They look in broad terms at the support that is available to care leavers—an issue which we all understand is incredibly important. I am supportive of pretty much all the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is about a national offer to care leavers and how that relates to local offers. No doubt we will come back to that.
I had the privilege of attending an all-party group meeting recently where we spoke to a large number of care leavers. I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was there as well. I was very impressed with the presentations that these care leavers gave. One of them made the key point that they would like to see a national offer for all care leavers to ensure consistency. I asked them to send me some more details about what exactly it would entail, because this is a critical issue.
My Amendment 95 is a bit more specific. It would require local authorities to provide more clarity on the services they provide to care leavers to help them develop their financial literacy and thus access their financial entitlements. As we have heard, young people leaving care are much more likely to leave home at an earlier age than other young people and be forced to live independently, often before they are ready. That means managing bills, a tenancy and other financial responsibilities, and juggling that with education or starting employment, often without having any financial safety net to fall back on, which so many parents provide for their children. I know it is stating the obvious, but there is no bank of mum and dad for this group of youngsters to fall back on.
Too often, care leavers are not aware of the financial entitlements and supports available to them from the local authority, such as council tax discounts, higher education bursaries or, more broadly, welfare benefits. This lack of information can lead to them facing unnecessary financial hardship or falling into rent arrears or debt. We all know that, once you start falling into debt, it is a vicious cycle and so hard to get out. All of this has a huge impact on their well-being and security. Care-experienced young people often report that they feel unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come from living independently from such a young age, primarily owing to the lack of support or opportunity to develop the skills and knowledge they need on such basic things as budgeting, money management and broader financial understanding.
That is why the amendment, which would introduce a requirement on local authorities to publish information about the services they provide to support care leavers to develop their financial literacy as part of their local offer for care leavers—we can come back later to whether that should be part of a national offer—is vital and could make such a difference to their life chances. Such a change would create more transparency for care-experienced young people about the financial support available to them and would help to address one of the main challenges they face when moving into independent living.
Amendment 130, as I said in the previous group, is basically about extending Staying Put to the age of 25. We have already had that discussion; I never quite understand some of the mysteries of grouping, so quite why we are having it in a separate group as well I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, set out the case very well. I shall just add that, as we heard in some of our earlier debates, young people leaving care often face a disproportionate risk of experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity. Care-experienced young people are nine times more likely to experience homelessness than other young people, and statutory homelessness rates for care leavers have increased by over 50% in the past five years, which underlines why I think extending Staying Put to the age of 25 is so important. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the previous group, it involves a pretty small number of care leavers. The costs of doing this would be fairly modest and I hope, from what we have heard in the spending review yesterday and today, that some space is opening up. So, really, I am asking Ministers whether they will think again.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my earlier early intervention. Noble Lords know how passionate I am about early intervention and it got the better of me.
Amendments 97 and 99 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. My support for my noble friend in his amendments is grounded in a desire, which I am sure all noble Lords share, to see high national standards of support, not just pockets of excellent practice in some local authorities. Having said that, the requirement in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 for local authorities to publish their own offer for care leavers, which this would amend, is an important one. But it needs to be built on. A higher standard at a national level would not prevent innovative and exemplary councils doing even better, but it would force any that were lagging behind to improve. I suspect that those who are dedicated to their local care leavers’ cause and are working hard on the ground would welcome high national standards, as those would help them argue successfully for the enhanced leadership and financial support required to lift their offering.
Another reason why the local offer is an important part of primary legislation is that it includes services relating to relationships—a primary need for children coming into care, while they are in care and when they exit. My noble friend Lord Farmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and Lord Mackay, now sadly retired, tabled an amendment to the Children and Social Work Act 2017 that was eventually accepted by the Government, which included the important word “relationships”.
On Amendment 97, the Bill presents an important and timely opportunity to embed relationships more deeply into councils’ arrangements to support and assist care leavers in their transition to adulthood and independent living. We should do all we can to enable care leavers to maintain, strengthen and build family and social relationships. Family group decision-making provisions in the Bill need to be built on. Having gone to all the effort to bring together families and friends who are committed to a child potentially leaving their parents’ care, we cannot allow those relationships to fall through the cracks in their care pathway.
The Family Rights Group, which forged Māori-born family group conferencing into a British model over many years by working with families and children with relevant experience, has similarly refined the lifelong links model, which started as the family finding model in Orange County, California. Lifelong links ensure that children in care have a lasting support network of relatives and others who care about them. A trained co-ordinator works with the child or young person to identify and safely reconnect with important people in their lives, such as relatives they may have lost contact with, former foster carers, teachers or sports coaches. With family group decision-making becoming standard practice, many such people will, or should, have been involved in that process. Keeping these contacts going is a sensible and straightforward next step. The lifelong links approach has demonstrated significant benefits, including more positive and healthy connections in the child’s life and better mental health, instead of isolation and depression, or worse.
Knowing that they matter as an individual to people who are not the professionals paid to look after them gives a child a much better sense of identity. The practical wisdom and guidance that family and friends give often makes the care leaver far more emotionally stable, with a knock-on effect on their ability to hold down accommodation and training or education courses. This reduces the risk of homelessness and of a child trying to make their way without a goal or purpose. Without the motivation that positive relationships provide, it can be very hard to persevere. If you do not matter to anyone, it is easy to wonder what the point of bothering is.
The lifelong links model is currently available in over 40 local authorities across the UK, with 22 receiving Department for Education funding. Lifelong links is not named in this amendment, but, given all of the investment the Government have already made in evidence-building, it should be included in regulations and guidance as an offer to all children in care and care leavers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am going to be slightly unconventional and start with the last amendment in this group, Amendment 183A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I think it is so important that it does not get buried in this rather large and diverse group. This amendment seeks to deliver what was, in essence, in the right reverend Prelate’s Private Member’s Bill, which we debated a few months ago, and which I spoke in favour of. It sought to ensure that the universal credit regulations are amended so that care leavers turning 18 receive the same level of universal credit as anyone receives at the age of 25.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who said that these are young people who have no access to the bank of mum and dad and no cushion. We are expecting them to live on a level of universal credit that is not reflective of what other people who have more support—not necessarily, but probably—live on. This is a modest measure. As I said at Second Reading, it is a humane, constructive and practical step. Although this should not be the reason for it, it is very clear that it would end up saving the state money by ensuring people have a little more support and do not fall a very long way through the cracks, as the statistics show they very often do.
At the Second Reading of that Bill, I spoke about the wonderful scheme in Wales that has been trialling universal basic income for care leaves, set at a quite decent level. One of the interesting things was that the only condition put on those care leavers was that they had to take one session of financial education. This is where I come back to Amendment 95, from the noble Baroness Tyler, to which I have attached my name. I have heard anecdotal reports—we have not had the written reports from the UBI trials yet—that one of the offers was that care leavers could take more financial education sessions, in acknowledgement that they had a significant amount of money available to them. Virtually every person in the scheme took the extra financial education. It might seem a bit specialised to have this in an amendment, but it is such an important factor.
I point to the fact that this is a broader issue. Care leavers are obviously people who particularly need financial education, but I note that, last year, the Financial Times Christmas appeal was to raise money to give British young people financial education. That is an indictment of the failure across the whole system to educate young people. It is very clear that care leavers are people who particularly need it, deserve to get it and can hugely benefit from it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the excellent and compelling amendments in this group. In particular, I support Amendments 96 and 107A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, will remember that I spoke at Second Reading of her commendable Private Member’s Bill on mental health professionals, which I think was about 18 months ago. I raised the particular issue of children with complex needs—specifically children mainly in mainstream schooling who are diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome. For a number of years in the other place, I supported Tourettes Action in its research, profile-raising and fundraising. For full transparency, my brother is a professor of cognitive neuropsychology, specialising in human movement studies, which includes Tourette’s.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships’ House in discussing Tourette’s, but I want to make the point that one of the key issues that affects children who have Tourette’s is a lack of collaboration and consistency across schooling, primary care and hospital settings. In other words, often children behave badly in school and are excluded because they are not diagnosed with Tourette’s and do not get the clinical care that they need. That work between the two parts of the state is not happening, and there is a similar issue for children with complex needs in the care system.
Again, all these amendments are excellent, but the specific advantage of my noble friend’s amendments is that they would impose an imperative on the education sector, and specifically the health sector—primary care, hospitals and other clinical settings—to focus on those children leaving care with specific and very important pressing needs.
There are a wide variety of issues that affect young people in that situation, including housing—the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham have focused on those issues—but the advantage of these two amendments is that they would put a focus on primary care in the Bill. Yes, young people are worried about education, skills, training and housing, but probably the most important thing is their health.
On that basis, putting this in the Bill would be a positive move that would encourage different social care agencies and the people who write the statements for those children and young people, such as teachers and so on, to start thinking about what their healthcare pathway will be in addition to other pathways, such as housing, education and skills. For that reason, I support these amendments. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon all the amendments, but those two in particular.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 100 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, which would insert a new clause aimed at giving all care leavers up to the age of 25 priority status in homelessness legislation. To that extent, it is a subsection of the much broader debate about how we look after care leavers.
The amendment would end a current anomaly in the law, whereby care leavers up to the age of 21 are entitled to priority under the homelessness legislation, if they present as homeless to their local authority, but not those between the age of 21 and 25. It is supported by a range of charities, not least Barnardo’s.
All young people need a safe and stable home in which to start their adult life—and, if you do not have that, it is difficult to access education, employment and health services. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, care leavers are more likely to be homeless than non-care leavers. Research by the charity Become shows that they are nine times more likely to become homeless, and that threat does not stop at the age of 21. Again as we heard from the noble Baroness, the numbers of young care leavers presenting as homeless has gone up by 50%.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, earlier that non-care leavers are staying at home much longer; the average age at which they leave is now 24, up from 21 a decade ago. Over the years, the legislation has been gradually catching up with that trend, beginning I think with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which recognised that the state or local authorities need to support children beyond the age of 18. Again as we heard earlier, care leavers do not have the same safety net of family to fall back on.
There is a lot in the Bill which I welcome to support care leavers, in particular a recent amendment disapplying intentionality for care leavers, meaning that local authorities, when they have a corporate parenting duty, no longer view care-experienced people under 25 as being intentionally homeless. But the Bill needs to go a little bit further. Under the current legislation, all young care leavers under the age of 21 who present as homeless are deemed to be in priority need, which means that local authorities have an obligation to accommodate them. However, there is no such automatic protection for care leavers between the ages of 21 and 25. Under the current homelessness legislation, they are required to prove that they are vulnerable—something that is not defined in legislation. This means that they have go around getting letters from their GP, for which they may have to pay, and getting other letters from psychiatric services, to prove that they are vulnerable and their corporate parent is under an obligation to support them.
There is also a problem with children who are placed out of area. They are not apparently automatically eligible for the usual care support in the local authority in which they are now living, even if they have been living there for many years, whereas local care leavers have that entitlement. That seems to be an anomaly that the Minister might like to comment on.
Finally, the amendment would bring the homelessness legislation into line with the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which obliges local authorities to continue to provide support up to the age of 25. It will not be a panacea for all the problems facing care leavers, but it will be an important step towards ensuring that, when the worst happens, help is available for a young person who may have few other places they can turn to for help. So I encourage the Government to accept the amendment.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support two amendments in this group, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Amendment 99, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, Amendment 100, both of which I have put my name to.
With more than 80,000 children in care, the highest figure on record, this Bill represents an opportunity to strengthen support for all care leavers. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after leaving care. Many become drug users and end up with a criminal record.
Some of the most affected care-experienced children are those from diverse backgrounds, who suffer double discrimination. Research by Barnardo’s found that nearly one in 10 black children in care has received a custodial sentence by the time they turn 18. When many finally leave care, they find themselves in prison or with a criminal record, which makes it difficult to find a home or employment, or develop a secure, happy life and any hope of a prosperous existence. They find themselves being part of a gang, which becomes a family substitute but leads to even more disaster.
As the Minister said in reference to the earlier group of amendments, there is an urgent need to improve understanding across agencies and departments of the needs of children in care and care-experienced young people, as well as providing training on how to better address these needs. For example, the Department for Education could extend corporate parenting principles to all bodies involved with care-experienced young people.
As we have heard, many young people can depend on their parents to support them long after they leave school or university, both financially and with a roof over their head. But support for care leavers across the country is piecemeal—a postcode lottery. Ashley John-Baptiste’s book, Looked After: A Childhood in Care, which I highly recommend, illustrates graphically just how difficult it is for young people to navigate their life after leaving care without support, especially if they want to go to university. It is potluck and almost an impossible task. Therefore, we should be doing more to ensure that care leavers are supported into adulthood, which I why I support Amendment 99 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Through Amendment 100, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, seeks to increase protection for care leavers facing homelessness. I welcome this amendment and fully support it. We need to support care leavers and give them the opportunity to forge a happy, secure and hopeful life. It is our duty to do this and I hope that the Minister will agree with me and other Peers, and support these amendments.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, on Amendment 100, from the noble Lord, Lord Young, I will offer a bit of Big Issue news. We did a survey in the early part of this century in which we surveyed 150 to 200 Big Issue vendors. Some 80% of them had been through the care system; most of them had been in care for a period of at least 10 years. I wrote an article about this which upset a lot of people, because I said that, in order to produce a Big Issue vendor, you had to spend over £1 million. To me, that is one of most frightening things: how expensive it is to keep people poor.
It costs £70,000 to keep somebody in foster care, but it costs almost £200,000 to keep somebody in care. We need to look at this problem. In spite of all the moral outrage, we need to look at this as a bit of fiscal bad news. We have to start shifting our resources towards moving children into foster care as much as possible. I am going to talk about this later, but I wanted to give noble Lords the news that Big Issue vendors are very, very expensive.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 98 in this group asks the same question I asked in the two previous groups: can we get local authorities to publicise what they are doing each year, to give them a benchmark to improve on each year?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this group ranges quite widely but there is a common theme: the things that are going wrong which ideally should not be. The question is, how do you get a handle on all of this?
There is a certain symmetry with the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, asking for a review into the disparities that care leavers are facing, which is fairly all-embracing. I suspect that quite a lot of that information is already available thanks to the MacAlister review. The right reverend Prelate’s amendment suggests that it could take up to two years—I would hope and expect it to be done a great deal quicker.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler, and to Amendment 130. We have heard that 67% of care leavers are anxious about money, according to the study by the charity Money Ready. Given that the second Oral Question today was on financial education post-16, it seems appropriate to talk about this in considering this amendment.
Some 80% of care leavers want more help managing their finances. Rent eviction and homelessness are the consequences of poor financial literacy. In 2024, a report from the Become charity revealed that 4,300 young care leavers aged between 18 and 20 end up homeless. This represents an increase of 54% in the last five years. The Staying Put charity has helped, but most still leave care on or before their 18th birthday.
In contrast, 55% of female and 59% of male 20 year-olds still live at home, and 47% of men and 29% of women still live at home at the age of 25. Most young people move out when they feel ready, when they have the financial capacity and literacy to live away from home. In contrast, care leavers need to be ready to leave home at a much younger age and do so usually with very tight financial budgets. There is no home to go back to if the money runs out.
It is easy for care leavers to miss out on financial education to help prevent issues that come up with independent living for the first time. Not only is there little information about financial management; the avenues available for reaching support to apply for grants and loans mean that many struggle to access these resources.
Because of the nature of the job market and house prices, 47% of men and 29% of women still live at home at the age of 25. The cost of living is keeping people at home; care leavers should have this support too. The expansion of the Staying Put scheme is supported by charities, and evidence from the charity Become shows that this would be a core way of mitigating against homelessness among care leavers.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that this was a wide-ranging group. As I was thinking about it, I thought that what pulls it together is that it is a kind of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. A lot of the amendments in it are the basic planks at the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid; one of those planks is of course healthcare.
My Amendments 96 and 107A try to address some of the evidence, which noble Lords will be well aware of, that shows that care leavers face much more negative physical and mental health outcomes than their peers. These disparities stem from the trauma they have suffered, adverse childhood experiences and, sadly, in some cases, the inability of their carers to meet their healthcare needs.
In the general population, children and young people visit specialist clinics more frequently than adults, if they need them, and their growth and development necessitate regular adjustments to medication and treatments. In young adulthood, health needs typically stabilise. We expect adults to manage their own healthcare, work with GPs and other medical systems, and self-manage long-term health conditions. Parents in supportive family settings will guide their children, and maybe even grandchildren, through this transition, but care leavers do not have that support. They often struggle to recognise that they need help, they do not know how to seek it, and it can often be very difficult to navigate complex healthcare systems. As a result, care-experienced people have a very poor uptake of physical and mental health support but very great physical and mental health needs. These clear and practical points were raised with me by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, to which I am extremely grateful for its briefing and advice, and for the time it has taken talking me through these issues.
My Amendment 96 would require local areas to set out clearly the transition arrangements for health and primary care for care leavers. It does not feel like it should be too much to expect this to be available. As importantly, my Amendment 107A would automatically schedule an extended GP appointment for care leavers who wish to use it; that is the simplest way to bridge this gap and empower them to talk about their health needs, and understand what local services are available to them and how to access them easily. Through this, they would receive support in navigating health systems—from booking appointments and requesting repeat prescriptions, to recognising when they need help. It seems a very small ask, and I hope the Minister will say yes.
There is a coherence to the other amendments in this group. They are the planks that all of us all too easily take for granted, such as having confidence in and transparency about how money works, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, so ably argued. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, cited the interesting example of the appetite for financial education of care leavers who are part of the universal basic income pilot.
I put the case for health and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, put the case for Staying Put—it was such a good idea that we have had it twice—and possibly the national offer. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham highlighted very simple human requests about how the housing system works for care leavers. The idea that a young person aged between 21 and 25 who has been through the care system has to yet again prove they are vulnerable is frankly shocking. I hope the Minister can say something encouraging about that.
We have a combination of the specific elements that would make a difference to care leavers’ lives: the reporting data that my noble friend Lord Lucas raised; the financial aspects highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bird; and, crucially, as I mentioned on an earlier group, the importance of relationships, ably explained by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott on behalf of my noble friend Lord Farmer. I remember listening to the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington talking about this issue, and I think he said that every child is one or two relationships away from success or failure. Actually, in the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of children going into gangs, they are seeking relationships. We would all do the same if we had no choice, but we want strong, positive relationships such as lifelong links has been proven to create, so I very much hope that, when the noble Baroness comes to sum up, she will come with good news.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I like the description of the hierarchy of needs and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I jump around a bit as well in my summing up. It has been a very rich set of contributions to an incredibly important part of the work that has been undertaken in bringing the Bill before your Lordships.
The first four amendments in this group seek to amend Clause 8, which will require local authorities to publish information on the support available to care leavers as they transition to independent living as part of their local offer for care leavers, set out in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. The remaining amendments seek to extend support for care leavers to address the poor outcomes they experience across so many aspects of their lives. Improving support for care leavers is something the Government are committed to doing through the measures in this Bill on Staying Close, local offer, corporate parenting and other programmes such as the care leaver covenant, and also by other initiatives that seek to work across government.
The fact that the Government have set up the care leaver ministerial board, chaired by Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson and for MHCLG Angela Rayner, shows absolutely top-level commitment to bringing all the relevant departments together so that they can most properly address the issues that have been raised here. It is probably beyond our ability through this Bill to address all the very important issues that have been raised and spoken to so eloquently from across the Committee.
Of course, the basic principle is that we want to ensure that young people are leaving care with stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships, engaged in education, employment and training. In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that is exactly the reason this board has been set up: to bring everything together to address the complex needs of the young people we are addressing.
I assure noble Lords that we are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships. The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme. From personal experience, the school that two of my grandchildren go to works on the restorative practice model. If noble Lords have not come across it before, I suggest having a look at how it works and how young people can learn at the youngest age how to form relationships and how to express their needs in a coherent and structured way, which can then inform all the complex issues that they will reach going through their lives.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before the noble Baroness moves on, I am not clear about something. The specific recommendation from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals is to have this extended GP appointment. The noble Baroness has now amended my amendment to make sure that it is at a convenient time. I just was not clear whether she said it would take time to produce the statutory guidance that will underpin all the corporate parenting responsibilities. However, as regards putting something—I am going to get the terminology wrong, so forgive me—into the kind of agreement with general practitioners, so that part of their contract is to offer this extended appointment as children young people leave local authority care, I was not clear whether the noble Baroness thought that was a realistic option, with the tweak of it being at a convenient time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for picking me up on that commitment. This is quite a detailed ask, but it is absolutely realistic that this is a new departure going forward and there will need to be consultation and everyone coming together to make sure that the statutory guidance is deliverable and works. However, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with more specific detail on that area as we move forward.
Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to extend the provision of Staying Put to age 25. We have discussed this at great length and I am no clearer as to why this is in this group of amendments rather than one of the others. So, without repeating the arguments, I will just say that the rationale is that we cannot commit off the top of our heads to effecting fostering arrangements without recognising that there will be a knock-on impact of change on the whole area of the foster care market, as it were. Any changes in this area are sensitive and have to be taken in the round.
However, the most important thing that we have to address is that too many young people who have come through the route into independent living from residential care, for example—who often, as I said earlier, have the most complex needs—will be a priority area in terms of addressing the support that they do not have because they have not entered the foster care route. So, we are keeping an eye on all of this through the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties, making sure that all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who are still in a Staying Put arrangement, as well as those who have left it, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it.
Amendment 153, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, would require public bodies, when carrying out equality assessments, to consider the needs of people who are or have been in local authority care. We know that looked-after children and care leavers face stigma and discrimination and we are determined to tackle this. There has been effective and passionate campaigning, with many local authorities taking positive action as a result.
Amendment 183A, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to enable care leavers to claim the higher over-25 rate of universal credit. Although he is not in his place, his amendment is an opportunity to revisit this: I was at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading of his PMB on this subject. Just to emphasise what we have already said, the Government recognise the considerable challenges that care leavers face and remain committed to supporting them. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
The Government have recently announced the first sustained increase to the universal credit standard allowance, and, while under-25s receive a slightly lower rate, additional elements are available, including for housing costs, to help them to live independently, and towards their living costs. They may also be eligible for universal credit elements, including for children, childcare costs and disability. Under-35s who are single and renting in the private rented sector and claim either housing benefit or universal credit can receive help towards their rental costs via the shared accommodation rate of the local housing allowance. Single care leavers under 25 may qualify for the one-bedroom local housing allowance. Discretionary housing payments administered by local authorities can be paid to those entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit.
The Government have extended the household support fund by a further year, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. I would emphasise the work that the DWP is doing in this area: its objective to help care leavers into long-term employment is the key to supporting their independent living. This is why we are focusing on providing access to the right skills and opportunities for sustained employment and career progression. Therefore, with all of those considerations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a really disappointing response to Amendment 98. We started with a response to Amendment 78 which was excellent, a continuing annual dialogue by someone who was really involved in what is going on. When we get to this amendment, I am not offered a review at all, it is just the menu: no content of what has been done, how it has been done and what the excitements and disappointments of the year have been. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, when she reviews this day and looks in general, will say, “Actually, my first answer was the better one”, and that that sort of relationship between a local authority and its duties and the public produces a much better response than just a local authority setting out what its offer is and making no comment whatever on how its performance has been, and offering no interaction to the public in general as to how that is going on. I will talk to my noble friend on the Front Bench about coming back to this on Report. It was a more general look at how local authorities should relate to their public about what has happened this year and what they hope to do next year.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. She used a word that I also thought of: it has been a very rich debate; it has been very wide ranging, with real passion, expertise and knowledge of the subject matter.
We all agree there is a strong moral imperative that we do all we possibly can to support care leavers as they make their transition into independent lives. I welcome and recognise the number of measures in the Bill that do that, but the whole tenor of this debate is that there is scope for strengthening. So many specific planks have been identified: health, housing, financial education, family relationships, et cetera. There is much to reflect on.
I was encouraged to hear that there is such a top-level, cross-government board looking at this, including Cabinet Ministers. That is really positive. Could this debate be drawn to its attention, so that it can see what we have said and the suggestions we have made? On the offer that should be available to all care leavers, it was helpful to have the distinction between some sort of national offer that is, essentially, the minimum standard that should be available everywhere and the local offer, where it is actually delivered. That will vary, but there is a set of standards below which it really should not fall. That is something we could think about further.
Rather than getting back into other issues or any disappointment about responses, I have a suggestion: would it be possible for interested Lords who have spoken in this debate to have a meeting with the Minister before Report, so that we could look together at where it is realistic to do the strengthening, which came across very strongly in this debate? On that basis, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Promoting relationships for looked after childrenIn section 22(3A) of the Children Act 1989, at end insert “and a duty to promote the child’s family and social relationships in ways which are consistent with the child’s welfare.””
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I am afraid it is me again. I will speak to Amendments 101 and 102. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for adding his name to Amendment 101 and, of course, to my noble friend Lord Storey. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, cannot be in his place, because these amendments are both about relationships, which I know he feels passionately about.
In short, Amendment 101 is about promoting relationships with children in care. That is central to their well-being and therefore at the heart of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the duty on local authorities to support the well-being of children in the care system by promoting the child’s family and social relationships alongside their educational achievement. Both are critical and interlinked.
We all need people to turn to in our lives for support, encouragement and love, particularly when times get tough. Research for the care inquiry by voluntary organisations concluded that the greatest failure of the care and child welfare system is that it too often breaks, rather than builds, relationships with children in and leaving care. Children often have to move to live far away from home, which means they have to change schools, leave behind family members, friends, neighbours and other important relationships. This is also relevant to Clause 11, which we will come to later, about children who have been deprived of their liberty. I will come back to that in a later grouping.
The absence of positive relationships in children’s lives increases the likelihood that they experience longer-term difficulties such as poor mental health—we have already heard about that—a tougher time at school, unemployment and homelessness. When young people leave care, their professional support network too often just disappears, and they do not have family or friends to turn to.
Charities such as the Family Rights Group have developed programmes of support to address this, such as lifelong links. I was going to talk about that, but the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, did so in an earlier group, so I am pleased to say I do not need to. The crucial point I want to make is that these relationships should not be broken in the first place and that local authorities should be supporting children in care to maintain positive relationships with those who are most important to them.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall speak to my noble friend Lady Tyler’s Amendments 101 and 102. Without embarrassing my noble friend, I thought that was a very powerful and emotional speech. For all of us in this Chamber, one of the most important things in our lives is the love of our family, our friends and relationships with other people. Those are the very things that children in care are often missing, so we should do all we can to ensure that they have the relevant relationships that they want. My noble friend Lady Tyler rightly said that we all need people in our lives to give us love, support and positive relationships—hear, hear.
Children and young people in care indicate that it is relationships not just with professionals such as teachers and health professionals but with a range of other people who provide an important support network that they need. The quality of the relationships is much more important than the quantity. Research suggests that the presence of one stable and significant adult in the life of a young person is more important than multiple relationships.
Social care cases across the UK reference the benefits of promoting the relationships of looked-after children. Those benefits will include: contributing to children’s resilience; promoting physical and mental well-being; minimising the likelihood of forming alternative, potentially dangerous relationships; helping with therapeutic work; and enhancing the stability of placements. But there are many barriers to ensuring such stable relationships.
As a teacher, in case conferences I found time after time that—through no one’s fault but perhaps the fault of the system—one of the problems was that the social worker had moved on to another area of work. The child or young person had built up a relationship with the social worker, and the social worker, through no fault of their own, had to move on to another job, perhaps because of a shortage of social workers. That created real pressures. Changing social workers and professionals means that there is not the time to build the trust with young people that is so essential. Where young people are excluded from shaping contact plans, or where previous secure attachments have been broken through experience in care, children often struggle with trust issues with adults—something that is exacerbated by the constant changing of social workers, as I have said.
On Amendment 102, an estimated 37% of looked-after children are separated from their siblings when they are placed into care. That is 20,000 children, as referenced by the Children’s Commissioner. For older children placed into semi-independent accommodation, 93% are separated from their siblings. Once separated, very little support to maintain relationships is provided.
Lots of research by social workers and charities emphasises the importance of sibling relationships for looked-after children. Siblings provide the longest-lasting relationships, often extending through their lifetime. Contact with siblings can foster positive identity development, provide emotional support through feelings of connectivity through shared experiences, give priority to existing functional relationships and help support the emotional needs of looked-after children.
When children are going through court cases to be removed from their parents, relations of direct contact are often prohibited between certain family members. This means that siblings cannot continue their relationship. Children are rarely consulted about such decisions.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says:
“No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation”.
In talking to children in care, they express that their relationship with their siblings is essential. The weight of responsibility for maintaining relationships with siblings is often placed on the looked-after person. That should not be the case.
Lord Meston (CB)
I speak in support of both amendments but particularly Amendment 102 for the strong arguments which have been advanced.
At every stage of a family’s involvement with a local authority, efforts should be made to enable siblings to maintain contact with each other and not to overlook the importance of the sibling relationship. It is now much better understood that, when parents can no longer care for a child, the most important and significant relationship that child may have is with his or her siblings—a relationship which, as the noble Lord has just said, can last a lifetime.
Although local authorities and courts strive to keep siblings together, that is not always possible and they may have to be placed separately. They may have different and sometimes conflicting needs. At a practical level, larger sibling groups can be more difficult to place together. If, for whatever reason, they cannot be placed together, meaningful and workable contact arrangements are essential.
There is a report, which I think is correct, of two sisters who were placed separately five minutes apart but were not allowed to see each other. One sister had to see her sister at a distance in the same school playground playing with a foster-sister. It is a desperately sad story. I recall having to deal with a case in which the siblings were a short distance apart from each other but in different local authority areas, and considerable efforts were required to get the two local authorities to co-operate. It is for that reason that I support the amendment. Judicial encouragement is usually enough but not always, and therefore court orders may be appropriate.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has highlighted the problem of large sibling groups. I want to draw attention to a very specific group, which is bereaved children. Sometimes there are several children in a single-parent family and, when that one parent dies, often the children left behind are half-siblings—sometimes several of them. The amendment is incredibly important because those children are grieving for the parent who has died and then for the sibling or half-sibling that they are separated from.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has reminded me of a family that I was involved with where the mum died and the father had been abusive so had no contact at all with the children, and the oldest child was a few months away from being 16. We managed, with the help of a schoolteacher and various other people, to keep those children together. Many years later, I still have some contact with them, and all the children have done well. I am convinced that, if we had not struggled to keep them housed together, then one of them in particular would probably have gone off the rails, yet they have all pursued good careers and have all done well.
As an investment for the long term in the lives of all these children, the amendment is important. I hope the Government will adopt it. I cannot see that it would cost anything in financial terms, but not adopting it probably would, because of the emotional trauma to the children who are separated from the people with whom they cannot share memories and remembrances about whomever it is they are separated from.
Another issue regarding that group of children is that sometimes there is a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle or someone who can provide them with some stability but is not in a position to provide kinship care. Keeping all those links going, and enabling them to link to cousins as well, can really support them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 101 and 102 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seek to promote familial relationships for looked-after children.
Amendment 101 seeks to include a duty to promote a child’s familial and social relationships alongside the existing duties for local authorities to promote the child’s welfare and educational achievement. This amendment emphasises the importance of maintaining relationships for children in care, which would have a positive contribution to their health and well-being. It is vital that the success of children in care is both child-led and child-centric and, as such, ensures that local authorities promote familial and social relationships.
Amendment 102 focuses on the relationships between looked-after children and their siblings. Currently, the relationship with parents is emphasised, and the relationship with siblings does not receive the same focus. As was highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Meston, establishing a bond between siblings, which can be lifelong, should be a top priority for looked-after children so that, whatever challenges they may or hopefully may not be facing, they have someone to turn to whom they can trust and confide in.
These appear to be sensible amendments, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important points.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I recognise that there is an enormous consensus in this debate about the significance of family and social relationships for looked-after children, for children in care and for all of us. This is why we feel so strongly that these are relationships we need to protect as far as possible for the children who are looked after by the state. It must be key, as several noble Lords have said, that we are able to maintain those strong relationships.
Perhaps at this point I should give a shout-out to my two sisters, who, after my mum, are the longest relationships by far that I have had in my life. As other noble Lords have said, when the going gets tough, it is your siblings who provide you with the support necessary—if you are as lucky as I am with mine—to get through those times.
We have a responsibility to help those children whose lives have been even more difficult to be able, wherever possible, to maintain those relationships. When a child is in care, as other noble Lords have said, the local authority must allow reasonable contact with the child’s parents, if it is consistent with the child’s welfare. These amendments seek to place equal duties on local authorities to allow reasonable contact with siblings of children in care. They also seek to strengthen wider family and social relationships for looked-after children.
We very much agree that it is important for a looked-after child’s welfare to, wherever possible, have and maintain positive relationships with their parents, siblings, wider family and friends. The importance placed on these relationships is echoed at all levels of a child’s care journey and is supported through current arrangements and statutory processes. We have heard in more than one debate today about the excellent work that has been done, for example, by lifelong links, which is supported in 22 local authorities by funding from the Government, and which is operating more widely than that. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is right that, when it comes to relationships, we need to focus on quality as much as quantity and on the sustainability of those relationships.
For local authorities, there are existing duties in the Children Act 1989 to endeavour to promote contact between looked-after children and their relatives. This includes siblings, friends and other connected people, unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with their welfare—the Children Act is clear about that. Good social work practice would ensure that there was a strong understanding of the people who are important in a child’s life, the nature of the relationships and an ability to be able to plan for how those relationships can be sustained.
Equally, when determining an appropriate placement for a child, local authorities must, as far as reasonably practical, ensure that the child can live with their sibling, if that sibling is also looked after. The importance of this is laid out in the care planning regulations. For those involved in care planning, regulations already make it clear that arrangements to promote and maintain contact with siblings must be included in a child’s care plan. This prioritises consistency, stability and lifelong loving relationships with those who are important to children and young people.
If a child is concerned about the level of contact that they have with their sibling or other family members, they should be encouraged to speak to a trusted person about this, be that their social worker, their independent reviewing officer—who has a responsibility to ensure that the plans being made for the child or young person are appropriate, including those that involve maintaining relationships—or an advocate. Under current legislation, in extreme circumstances children in care can apply to the court for contact with any named person, which could include a sibling, and siblings can seek permission from the court to apply for a contact order. Furthermore, as I think we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the court should consider contact in making a care plan for that child.
For foster carers and, for example, staff caring for children in children’s homes, there is statutory guidance and regulations to promote positive relationships between a child and their family and friends. More broadly, a very strong theme in the Bill is our working to promote strong family networks in all areas of children’s social care—for example, through the measures on family group decision-making, which we discussed right at the beginning of Committee. That might be an appropriate way to address the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about bereaved children. The noble Baroness is right that, in those cases, it is particularly important that, at the point at which they are bereaved, children would be able to maintain contact with those who they have left in their lives.
I hope I have recognised the important arguments behind both these amendments, and that I have provided some reassurance to noble Lords that existing laws, regulations and guidance already strongly value, and have an expectation around, the importance of sibling relationships and other relationships, while ensuring children’s welfare. I suspect that this is a place where the law, regulations and standards are already in place. What we need to do is focus on the significance of this and on the good practice of social work needed to enable it to happen. Social workers around the country will be focusing on it, and I hope us having had this debate will make it more likely that it will be brought to the fore in people’s thinking. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very empathetic response. Following her example, I guess I ought to give a shout-out to my brother. We have been through some quite difficult times together, and that is what leads to that enduring relationship.
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. It has been one of those debates that shows this House at its very best, and that we can deal with issues to do with love and emotions. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. My reaction is as follows: it may well be that this is currently written into existing legislation and guidance, but I know from all the care leavers I used to speak to on a regular basis that, far too often, it simply does not have much impact on the ground—and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. One of my objectives in putting this amendment forward was to have something in the Bill that makes it absolutely obvious that sibling contact is a right. It would be really encouraging for children in care to know that it was there.
Between now and Report, it would be helpful to have further discussions about the extent to which the problem is that this is just not clear enough in law, and so we need to put something in—which, again, as was said, would not have any cost implications—or whether it is more to do with social work practice on the ground. I am a great believer in both/and, so I think we may well be returning to this on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
“Register of foster carers(1) The Secretary of State must introduce a register of local authority foster parents and independent foster parents who are—(a) currently fostering children, or(b) available to foster children.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a register of foster carers. The intention is that having such a register, as exists for social workers, would improve the safeguarding of children, and matching and sufficiency of placements, and improve the status of foster carers.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, introducing a national register for foster carers would produce many benefits. Overall, it would enhance their status. One resulting effect would be to attract more volunteers, thus beginning to reduce the shortage of foster carers across England, which currently stands at around 5,000. That in turn would improve the matching process by which children in care are placed with foster families, and increase the portability of foster carers. All those benefits would raise the level of safeguarding of children in the care system.
Last year the Commons Education Committee inquiry into children’s social care recommended that the creation of a national register of foster carers should be considered by the then Minister for Children. The inquiry was interrupted by the general election, but the new committee has reactivated it and is still considering these issues. It has been reported that the Government are considering the merits of a national register, which would certainly be appropriate because both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are consulting on the creation of such a register. Perhaps my noble friend can clarify the current thinking on this.
A register would safeguard children by keeping a central record of foster carers who have had their approval terminated for safeguarding reasons, ensuring that they are not reapproved by another service and then able to care for another child. Currently, services cannot always know this, particularly if potential foster carers are transferring between independents and local authority services. The introduction of a register would go hand in hand with an accredited pre-approval and post-approval training framework and robust national standards of practice, improving the overall quality of care for children.
The number of children in care in England who are moved outwith their local authority area is an issue that we have heard mentioned by noble Lords in several of the debates today. It increased from 41% in 2020 to 45% last year. A register would allow services to make matches more quickly at a local level, which would ultimately reduce out-of-area placements. That could be done by the new regional care co-operatives, which we are going to debate in the seventh group today and which will lead on regional placement commissioning, for which the Bill already makes provision. With a register in place, local authority fostering services could be given access to information on the number of fostering households with vacancies for children in their local area, including those with independent fostering providers, as well as in neighbouring local authorities.
This amendment would require the Government to establish a national register for foster carers. Linked to the regional care co-operatives, that would help to better safeguard children and, as I have said, improve the status of foster carers through formal recognition of their role, allowing services to match children to foster care placements more quickly at the local level.
I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that the register would bring the beneficial outcomes that I have outlined and overall assist in making a significant dent in that shortfall of foster carers, which results in too many young people being denied the option of improving their life chances by being able to find a loving foster family to embrace and nurture them. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 143 seeks to promote the idea of a national foster care strategy. I declare an interest in that a very long time ago my wife and I were registered as foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth—nothing on the heroic scale of the Timpson family, of whom we heard earlier. It principally involved looking after the children of a single mother while she went into hospital to have her baby; somebody needed to look after her children before she was discharged. The regime in those days was much more relaxed than it is today.
Since then, the relatively informal system has evolved into a much more structured and regulated part of the child welfare system, particularly following the Children Act 1989. There is now a much stronger emphasis on the physical and psychological stability of a child, and more awareness of the risks of inappropriate placements.
I turn to the amendment. Most children grow up in their own home with two parents, one parent, or a parent and a partner, and most of the challenges that confront a family can be met within the normal support mechanism of families, friends, the local authority and heroic voluntary organisations. But at times children have to be taken into care by the local authority. In March 2024 there were 83,630 children in care in England, up from 80,000 in 2020. For those children, there is a range of options: for a very few it will be adoption, but for most it will be kinship care, fostering or children’s homes, and we had a good debate about kinship care and the role of local authorities as a constant theme.
Lord Bird (CB)
I second the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am very interested in foster caring, largely because when I was in care as a young child, it was largely because I did not really have a family. I had a mother and a father, and I had brothers who were taken away in one direction. My parents were not very grown up; they had not really got used to the idea of having six children when they could probably afford only one.
I find this amendment so interesting because it backs up my experience as a young boy. When our family finally reconnected in Fulham in south-west London, the place was littered with foster-children. It was very interesting. I got to know people who went to my school, and they were fostered. They were not blood brothers or sisters or related to their family. I found that so interesting because most of those children, dare I say—I do not want to appear as a classist—ended up being quite middle class. They ended up getting the education of a lot of us who passed through care. It was interesting that, in this area of Fulham, there was this great mixture of very working-class children with a bit of a middle-class aspect, yet the children who really excelled were the ones who had the all-round relationships.
I would love to see a strategy that got behind those circa 130,000 people who want to foster. I would like to see a shrinking of the numbers of local authority homes, having been in a Catholic one, which was not an awful lot different from any other kind. The idea of institutionally raising children is not good news. The idea of raising children who were separated from their loved ones—as I was—is bad news. Therefore, I suggest we follow the example from the noble Lord, Lord Young, and create a proper strategy so that we can share out the loving relationships that we need to to our children, who are in desperate need, especially at the time when their own kith and kin cannot provide them with what they really need.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 134, 143 and 178. Fostering is critical to the provision of good care for all children who need it, and it is a really tough job.
In Committee so far, not very much has been said about the very large proportion of looked-after children who have significant special needs—it is more than 90% of all children in children’s homes, and it is over 70% of all looked-after children. Many of those are problems that have arisen as a result of post-birth experience, but there are quite a lot of instances where these are problems that children were born with and will be with them for life. Some children are in foster care precisely because their birth parents have not been able to cope with their significant needs, so we ask a tremendous amount of foster carers.
The measures in the amendment to improve on the current position are very welcome. But the Government could go further in some very practical ways, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendments. Room sharing is not always appropriate, but for some children it will be suitable. Similarly, foster carers need more authority to make more of the decisions and do more of the often everyday things that parents do.
I support the comments made about the need for streamlined recruitment processes and a foster care strategy that really thinks about the support services, training, respite and wider services that help foster carers to do it well, to feel that they have the capacity and that they can sustain the tremendous effort of foster caring through the whole period that any given child needs it. There is an opportunity here.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I added my name and to which the noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke so powerfully. I thank the Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers for its help on this.
As we have heard, this amendment aims to ensure that the challenges within foster care services are both recognised and addressed. With a well-defined strategy in place to oversee necessary reforms to the system, we can ensure that local authorities are no longer burdened by the unstable expense of children’s social care.
Many foster-children feel that their new home has given them a new chance, and they feel like a genuine part of the family. Foster carers overwhelmingly say that being a foster-parent has had a positive impact on their lives, as they provide love and support to vulnerable children.
Independent fostering agencies—IFAs—play a huge role in providing high-quality care for children: some 96% of IFAs are rated “Good” or “Outstanding” by Ofsted.
While the Government’s commitment to the foster care system since the general election is a positive step, it is vital that any interventions go beyond short-term fixes. This is why we need to see the introduction of a dedicated foster care strategy to provide strategic oversight to the tactical pledges made previously.
There are welcome measures outlined in the Bill to regulate and introduce oversight of independent fostering agencies. However, given that these IFAs make up a significant proportion of the sector, without a dedicated foster care strategy, which provides insight into the Government’s ambitions for the sector, this already precarious sector is unable to plan effectively for the future. Ultimately, without addressing the underlying causes of pressure in children’s social care, such efforts risk falling short of delivering lasting impact.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I lend my support to Amendment 143, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I have added my name. This amendment, on the need for a foster care strategy, was, if I may say so, powerfully brought to life by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and I thank him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Young, put it very well when he talked about the gap that exists, saying that we had strategies for other aspects of children’s social care but not for fostering. It is a gap that it would be useful to fill, in the same way that the amendment I brought last time suggested a strategy for neglect.
As we have heard, urgent action is needed to address the recruitment and retention crisis in foster care. Nationwide, it has been calculated that we have a shortfall of some 6,000 foster carers across the UK, with 5,000 more needed in England. Certainly, more foster carers are continuing to leave than are joining up. Various surveys have shown that the three key reasons for this have been inadequate financial remuneration, lack of support from their fostering service and a lack of respect for their role. I think that last one is really sad. I did notice in the 2024 State of the Nations’ Foster Care report that the number of foster carers who said they would recommend fostering to others has decreased. Indeed, fewer than half of foster carers said that they would recommend fostering to others who may be considering it. It is for those reasons that we need a national strategy to lay out how fostering will be more sustainable in the long term, not least to meet the needs of some of the children who the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was talking about.
I also support Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which would be an important part of raising the whole status of fostering.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the context for my Amendments 134 and 178 is, as we have heard in this short debate, that we face a very severe shortage of foster carers. As other noble Lords have said, this Bill feels like a huge missed opportunity to try to address this problem. Honestly, I do not really understand why the Government have not chosen to do more to address it—but perhaps the amendments in this group will offer the way.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned that there is currently a shortage of 5,000 foster carers in England; that is 33 foster carers per local authority. It just does not feel like an insuperable problem to find 33 homes across the country in each local authority—though, absolutely rightly, my noble friend Lady Spielman spoke of the very high prevalence of complex needs in children who go into foster care.
This speaks to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and others about a strategy, which would also address the recommendation in the MacAlister review that we need more flexible models of fostering. As we have heard, of just over 160,000 families who expressed an interest in becoming foster carers in 2020-21, only just over 2,000 were approved—a conversion rate of 1.3%. I understand that many applicants apply to multiple agencies and so get counted twice. There may be timing issues for potential carers, and there are structural challenges, including pay and the need for training, and difficulties in the application process, as we have heard. This is the most significant area for the roughly 83,000 children in care. Over 56,000 of them are in foster care, half of them with independent agencies and half in local authority foster care. That is a very big and important number, and it feels fundamental to address it.
It sits at the heart of what we might call the children’s homes problem of cost and profits, which we will debate in subsequent groups. If we had more foster carers, the pressure would come off children’s homes, prices would adjust and we would be in a much better situation, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, put so convincingly, because the wraparound of foster care—the fact that there is a family and relationships—leads to vastly better outcomes for the child. For all those reasons, this is an important group, and I hope that Amendment 143 is one that the Minister takes very seriously.
My amendments are much simpler. Amendment 134 would give more flexibility to allow young children over the age of three to share a room. My intention is that this would apply to primary-aged children, although re-reading my amendment I think that my drafting skills have come through yet again. Having talked to directors of children’s services in London and other areas with high housing costs, I know that the number of potential foster carers with several spare rooms is very limited. I am aware that some organisations in the sector see this as a safeguarding risk, but I argue that we are already trusting the foster carer to care for a very vulnerable child. Within that, we should trust their judgment about the sleeping arrangements of the children in their home. Sadly, safeguarding risks are not confined to what happens in a child’s bedroom. This amendment could potentially add several hundred more places, at little or no cost, in areas with the greatest pressure to place children locally, and would avoid children being placed very far from home—as we have heard about several times today—their roots and their communities.
This is not the only way to expand capacity. Another would be to invest in initiatives such as the Greater Manchester Room Makers scheme and roll it out more widely. It provides funding for foster carers to renovate existing rooms or build extensions to allow them to care for more children.
My Amendment 178 seeks to clarify the delegated authority that foster carers have for the children in their care. This was tabled in the other place by the honourable Member for North Herefordshire and received a positive response from the Minister. I seek further confirmation from the Minister here that the Government still intend to consult on this point. Perhaps she could update the House on the likely timeline for the consultation and for the secondary legislation to be amended.
Thinking more broadly, and returning to Amendment 143, it would help the House if the Minister could share other ideas the Government are working on to improve recruitment and retention. I spoke recently to the organisation Now Foster, which is developing “weekenders”—that might not be the right term—which offer regular weekend placements for children who might be either in kinship or foster care, giving much needed rest and space to both parties, and a consistency and stability for the child or young person that can extend beyond the age of 18. Crucially, it also gives foster carers a chance for a more modest but still substantial commitment, rather than taking in a child full time with everything that entails. This idea—again, this came up in the MacAlister review—of having different options and different models of fostering is long overdue for more work.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham talked about the importance of a support network for foster carers. I visited an amazing group of foster carers—some brand new and about to receive their first child, some who had been fostering for over 20 years—who are part of an employee co-operative, Capstone Foster Care, in Peasedown St John in Somerset. Again and again they spoke eloquently about the impact of that network on their ability to foster and to offer love and care to very vulnerable children.
They also talked—this ties in with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson—about the need for a really positive recruitment campaign. Most people hear about fostering only when there is a case of severe neglect or worse. But across the House we have heard examples of many noble Lords who have either been foster carers or who recognise the extraordinary and life-changing work that foster carers do. We need that message to get outside this Chamber and out to people who might consider this and see it as a respected and important profession. We need more innovation in this area to unlock the potential in our communities to provide this kind of support for children who need it, and to improve retention.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a well-informed debate on the amendments in group 5 concerning foster care, particularly informed by those who have had personal experience. The noble Lord, Lord Young, gave his experience of being a foster carer and I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made a very important contribution on what it feels like to be a child in the system and the lifelong impacts that has.
I think there has been a consensus once again that foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. We very much share the concerns raised in this House about the falling numbers of fostering households—a fall of 9% since 2020—and the effect this has on children. Perhaps it was the late night I had had, but I felt marginally grumpy about the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that because there is not more about fostering in this legislation, somehow or another that means that this Government are not committed to righting the decline we have seen over recent years. Therefore, I will take the opportunity to spell out exactly what the Government have been doing. There is a tendency in this House, which is understandable because we are legislators, to think that things happen only if they are put into legislation. I hope I can demonstrate that there is plenty happening on fostering due to the actions of and investment put in by this Government.
Lord Bird (CB)
I just wanted to remind us of a little bit of history. Napoleon said that a battle plan strategy was the most useless thing on earth but that you were lost without it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That is good, because I was about to say—although I think he called it a battle plan, not a battle strategy—that the Government will set out our plans for foster care in due course, bringing together the range of activities that is already happening and taking on board the need to go further in the way that noble Lords have rightly pushed us to today.
Amendment 105, introduced by my noble friend Lord Watson, is on the introduction of a national foster care register. As he outlined, fostering services currently maintain local registers of foster carers alongside records relating to prospective foster carers. A national foster care register would insert central government into the systems and processes of foster care oversight, which are currently deployed locally. But as he said, and as I think my honourable friend in the other place outlined in Committee there, we are considering the possible benefits and costs of a national register of foster carers as part of our wider reforms.
There are a range of proposals for such a register. It will require some careful consideration. Specifically, I am sure we all recognise the need to ensure that a national foster care register would also meet local needs and avoid unforeseen negative consequences, and that it would overcome some of the risks surrounding the security of sensitive data, as well as imposing additional bureaucracy on the sector. But we want to engage with fostering stakeholders on this issue to determine next steps, and we can see some of the advantages of the national register that my noble friend outlined.
Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is on the sharing of bedrooms for foster children to enable foster carers to look after more children in their home. She identified that one of the pushes for this comes back to one of the fundamental issues that we will discuss on upcoming clauses and which lies very much at the heart of the Government’s reforms: the insufficiency of high-quality places, fostering or otherwise, for the children who need them. I completely understand the belief that changing standards in this way might enable us to increase capacity.
I have already identified that the Government will invest money, for example, in allowing extensions and other ways that foster carers might alter their homes to provide more space and capacity for children. But it is also the case that our national minimum standards already allow foster children aged three or over to share a bedroom, subject to conditions being met, which are in place to safeguard and protect children. That means that fostered children, such as siblings, can share a bedroom where it is in the best interests of the child, provided that each child has their own area of the room.
We can update those national minimum standards at any time. We do not require a change to Section 23 of the Care Standards Act, as suggested in this amendment, to do so. The language in this amendment would change the tone of the national minimum standards. I am not averse to the point that is being made here; we just need to be careful about the balance that we are setting. It would shift the default position to present room sharing both as appropriate and, in fact, standard practice, rather than the current tone, where room sharing should be considered where it is not possible for each child to have their own room.
I think we all agree that children in foster care deserve to be treated as a good parent would treat their own children and to have the opportunity for as full an experience of family life and childhood as possible. I know that there are many good parents who will have children who share bedrooms, especially at a younger age, but I also know that for many children, fostered or otherwise, and for many parents, the gold standard would for them to have their own room. If we add to that the fact that children often enter foster care after experiencing neglect or abuse, including sexual abuse, and may have a greater need for their own personal space and for privacy, we can see the need to be careful about shifting the position to promoting sharing.
We recognise that room sharing in foster care may be suitable, as I have said, particularly for siblings, and we think it is right that flexibilities are already in place, but we are reluctant to suggest that room sharing should be promoted as standard practice. Importantly, we have seen no evidence from children and young people themselves to suggest that they want room sharing to become standard practice in foster care.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister mentioned that the Government are putting funding into extensions and so forth. Will she write with details of how many additional places that funding is expected to secure? I do not mean precisely, but just to give a sense.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I am happy to do that. Of course, that is just one part of the sufficiency work that the Government are doing and that other elements of the Bill aim to make progress on, but I will write specifically on that project.
Amendment 178 on delegated authority for foster carers, which is also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Barran, would give foster carers more autonomy and flexibility. All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities. That is so that they can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. Under the current system of delegated authority, if something is not listed on the child’s placement plan then the foster carer does not have delegated authority and they must check with their social worker before decisions can be made. Foster carers can only take decisions that are in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. This amendment would change that current system of delegated authority.
I have considerable sympathy with the idea that if we are asking people to take on the crucial role of caring for children on a day-to-day basis and making them part of their families then they also need the authority to be able to do that in the rounded way that any parent would expect to have. That is why we have begun conversations with foster carers and fostering services about proposed changes to ensure that all foster carers should have delegated authority by default in relation to the day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We think that reforming this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties but, following a consultation, we are committed to implementing necessary amendments to secondary legislation. We do not believe that we would need changes to primary legislation in order to do that. Delegated authority is outlined in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baroness that, in that area, we very much see the case being made and want to make progress.
With all the assurances and further information that I provided, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that comprehensive response and I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. One thing that has always struck me about your Lordships’ House is the vast experience, on all sides, that often emerges in debates. On this group this evening, we have had two further examples of personal experience from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. Such experience always informs the debate and gives it a depth and breadth that, certainly when I have been in other legislatures, has not always been the case, and it is very valuable.
I heard what my noble friend said in her response about the proposal for a national foster care strategy. One of the strong points of Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Young—which would have had my name attached to it, incidentally, had it not already had three names when I went to add mine—is subsection (2), from memory, which refers to how we can improve the quality of foster care. That seems self-evident and I am sure the Government are doing it anyway, or trying to do it anyway, but it seems to me that it is important that, however well we are doing, we are not doing well enough, given the figures that have been quoted, not least the number of foster carers coming forward and the high rejection rate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred, which is astounding—I had not heard that before. There must be some reason for that, which we could surely turn around to get to the 5,000 shortfall, if that is what we have across the country.
On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about what Napoleon said about the need for a strategy, whatever the Government are doing on this and in the broader children’s social care field, it is important that there is a strategy, whether or not it is written down. I do not know whether Napoleon had strategies throughout his lengthy career—which mostly went pretty well until it ended at what I might say is a London mainline railway station—but I still think it is important to have a strategy underpinning what we are doing.
I have gone on long enough. On my amendment proposing a register of foster carers, I was very encouraged by what my noble friend said—although she did chuck a couple of pebbles into the pond by saying there could be an increase in bureaucracy. There has to be an effective bureaucracy, because we are not bringing enough foster carers into the system; I do not necessarily think that is bureaucracy, because there has to be whatever it takes to ensure that we enrol more people.
As far as national versus local is concerned, I think that the two sit very neatly together: we would have a national strategy, and locally you would make sure that you draw in the people in the areas where they are most needed. I do not see them as mutually exclusive. I am encouraged by what my noble friend said, and I look forward to developments in the near future. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Storey
“Adoption and special guardianship support fund review(1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the level of funding available per child from the adoption and special guardianship support fund.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per child.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, as a local councillor in Liverpool, once a week I do what I call my “Keeping in touch”, where I go to each resident with a little form and ask them to fill out any particular concerns they have in the area: “Leave it outside your letterbox, and I’ll be back in an hour to pull it out”. I did the final household and thought, “I will finish now and go home”. The lady opened the door and said, “Everything is fine. We didn’t need to fill it out”. I said, “Oh, that’s good news. Goodbye”.
As I was walking down the path, the lady said, “Actually, there is something you could help me with.” I said, “What is it?” She said “No, I don’t think you can help me.” I said “Well, what is it?” She said, “I and my husband adopted two children when they were two-and-a-half years old. One is now 11 and the other is 12. The boy was severely traumatised as a two-and-a-half year old, so much so that he has to have regular therapy sessions. The problem is that the grant we got has been cut by nearly £2,000, and we now cannot afford the therapy sessions.” I said, “Okay, leave it with me and let me think this through.” I thought, “Well, I will put down a Written Question to the Minister.” We know how Written Questions work, do we not? Those who have been Ministers will know that, often, they try not to reveal all the facts as they happen to be.
Lord Storey (LD)
Oh, goodness, I would not suggest that for one moment of the current Minister—or the previous Minister.
My Written Question was:
“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of the adoption and special guardianship support fund.”
The Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, was:
“This government fully recognises the importance of support for adoptive and kinship children and families. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund … has been a valuable part of the support landscape for ten years. This is why we have provided £50 million of funding for the ASGSF for 2025/26, alongside £8.8 million for Adoption England, to complement the range of support available in local areas.”
I did a little further research, because that seemed to tell me that everything was okay and that this family need not worry: they were not getting any cuts. Almost half the ASGSF awards last year exceeded the new £3,000 allowance, so some children will receive cuts of almost 40%. Data shows that thousands of children will now go without the therapy they need as a result of this cut. Alongside this cut has gone a separate allocation of up to £2,500 per child per year for special assessments. This has been completely removed. Match-funding support for children with an exceptional level of need has also been removed. Previously, the ASGSF provided up to 50% of the funding for up to £30,000 per child, with the rest provided by the local authority. The consequences of these changes are that any new specialist assessment must now be paid for from the £3,000. Therapy care or support must also come within this budget, regardless of need. Support that was given may no longer be given.
Change can exacerbate issues for children with attachment and trauma-related needs, who require sustained, regular support. Building trust with a therapist takes time, but continuity of care will now be harder. Children with the most complex needs now face a highly uncertain future, which may may lead to increased exclusions, due to behavioural issues that were traditionally tackled with therapy. An increase in issues such as child-to-parent violence threatens family placements further.
This family just cannot cope any more because the funding, as we have heard, has been cut. Whether that is the element from the local authority or from the Government, I do not know, and I have been unable to look into that any further. The language we sometimes use in such cases is interesting. Need for funding is now framed as demand. Such language is insensitive to children who need the funding—SEND children as well as children who have experienced significant trauma.
I do not want to talk any longer on this. Given that we had the Statement yesterday from the Chancellor and there is a bit of extra money for education, maybe a small amount of it can be used in these cases. We all know the figures on fostering and adoption. Anybody who adopts a child—never mind two children—into their family, brings them up and supports them needs all the help we can give them. I feel lucky that, because I am in your Lordships’ House, I can use the opportunity to try to help this particular family. I hope the Minister will look sympathetically on my amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will also speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. As far as this fund is concerned, I have been involved in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence as an officer and occasional co-chair for the past seven or eight years. I do it with somebody the Minister will know: Rachael Maskell, the MP for York Central. I was just scrolling back on the group’s website to see how many times we have had to launch a mini-inquiry into this fund and go through a process of appealing yet again to successive Governments to keep it going. In doing that, we have amassed each time a large amount of evidence to show just how much good this fund has done and how transformative it is for families who have adopted children, many of whom are expressing the medium- and long-term effects of the trauma they received in early life. This fund is a genuine lifesaver for those children.
I have kept in touch with a parliamentary assistant who works for an MP and is an adoptive parent. She has told me over the past few years about the intense challenges she and her husband have had with one of their adopted children and how, frankly, without the support of this fund, they were getting near crisis point and would have had to give up the adoption, so the child would have lost their adoptive family. It was the fund that enabled them to keep going. I stress to the Minister the disproportionate good that is done for these families by the expenditure of relatively small amounts of money, in the great scheme of things. The quality support and counselling that is required to help children with this level of trauma is not cheap. It requires extremely dedicated professionals who are very focused in this area. Working with children who have experienced trauma is as challenging for the practitioners as it is for the parents and the children.
I would hate to think that, over the next four years of this Government, we will have a repeat of what the all-party group experienced under previous Governments, of having to go through this cycle every two or three years of the Government threatening to reduce the fund and us having to go out and get evidence to explain just how important and life-changing it is—along with other groups, of course. In the end, the Government typically listen to the argument, but in each case it has been a challenge to get them to listen, so this group is an opportunity to remind the Minister just how transformative this fund is for the parents of children who have experienced trauma, as many adopted children have.
That leads me to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to which I added my name. In terms of numbers, adoption is a relatively small part of looking after children who are unable to be with their birth parents. There are the large numbers in kinship care, which we talked about earlier this week, the large number—we wish it was larger—who are being fostered, and then the extremely large, expensive and distressing number of children who are in residential care.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell. I will speak to Amendment 145 in my name. To be honest, I am pleasantly surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted the amendments in this group as being within scope, because the Bill seems to studiously avoid adoption. A search that I carried out revealed that the word “adoption” appears only four times in the Bill’s 137 pages, and three of them are as part of other legislation that is referred to.
That is disappointing because the Bill offers an opportunity to improve outcomes for adopted children, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in society, alongside measures for children in kinship care and foster care and care leavers. That is a package, or a jigsaw, all of whose parts interact, and, frankly, I do not understand why one part is virtually absent. There is overwhelming evidence that adoptees are not currently getting the support they need to provide them with an equal chance to thrive, and that is unfortunate. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, it is a relatively small number in the greater scheme of things, but I still do not see why adoptive families are not given the credit they deserve for the important job that they do.
The review mentioned in my amendment would consider the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support and highlight current gaps in the system. Every year, around 4,000 children in the UK are placed in adoptive families, and government data shows that around 80% of adopted children in England last year will have suffered abuse, neglect or violence before adoption. Before being adopted, children spend an average of 15 months in care, often moving through several foster families, and many lose everything that is familiar to them along the way because of that process. Meanwhile, adoption gives children a chance to build some stability as part of a loving, safe and nurturing home. Evidence is quite clear that outcomes are better for children who are adopted than for those who grow up in residential care. The early trauma that they suffer may well be with them for the rest of their lives, and they need the support that can be provided via adoptive families.
Currently, there is a duty under the Adoption Support Services Regulations for a local authority to provide adoption services and to provide information. Often, adoptive families point out that there is a failure to provide information about the support that is available. Individual agencies, on behalf of the local authority, typically give information on their websites about the support they offer, but it does not always work out that way in practice. The support and information vary, and it has to be said that cuts to local authority budgets over the years of Tory Governments have resulted in reduced support for adoptive families, because local authorities are simply not able to provide what they want to provide.
The Adoption Support Services Regulations require updating so that they reflect the changes that have taken place in adoption over the last two decades. They have not been updated since 2005. That includes the regionalisation of adoption agencies in England. The charity Adoption UK has produced evidence that out-of-date regulations can, and in many cases do, impact on family court proceedings, and thus potentially on the time it takes for an adoption order to be made.
The agencies themselves are not Ofsted inspected, meaning there is a lack of accountability and consistency in the system. The thematic inspection of a handful of regional adoption agencies carried out by Ofsted in late 2023 highlighted some of the challenges for those agencies and partner local authorities in achieving the services that adoptees and their families require. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, will be aware of that; I do not know whether she wants to contribute to this debate, but she will be aware of the outcome of those inspections.
Adoption UK’s meticulously gathered evidence has consistently shown that there are gaps in support. Its adoption barometer survey, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, reveals that the proportion of adoptive families who said they are facing severe challenges or reaching crisis point is up from 30% in 2020 to 38% in 2023.
I was going to say something about the adoption special guardianship support fund and the other amendments. I am not going to do that now, as other noble Lords have covered that perfectly adequately.
Without effective support services, adopted children are at a higher risk of returning to the care system, with a lack of ongoing support leading to placements too often breaking down. The impact of such breakdowns on the cost to the Treasury is fairly obvious. I do not think it is right that adoption should be pushed to the margins in this way, when adoptive families play such a vital role. I come back to the point I started on: it is a bit of a mystery to me why adoption is not much more prominent in this Bill.
The review that I am advocating in this amendment would consider whether the services provided by the adoption agencies and the existing regulations and guidance covering adoption are fit for purpose. I do not expect this review to be in the Bill, but I would like to think that my noble friend will consider carrying it out as an initiative of the department. As I think everyone accepts, there are gaps in the provision that need to be filled.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Watson, have said, on the basis of my experience as an adoption judge.
First, in respect of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the variability—as it has now emerged—of regional adoption agencies, I suggest that that is something the Government should be reviewing carefully. Secondly, I want to emphasise the point he made about the sheer awfulness of disrupted and failed adoptions, particularly in cases where so many hopes have been pinned on the adoption and so much trouble has apparently been made in preparing the child and the adopters.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to add my name to Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I commend him and his colleagues in the other place, particularly the honourable Member for Twickenham, on their concerted efforts to bring attention to this important fund, which provides support to about 20,000 very vulnerable children who have suffered great trauma. The anecdote that the noble Lord gave of the family he met brought this issue to life very vividly. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, all of whom have brought great experience, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his remarks, his expertise and the work of the APPG that he co-chairs.
I will not go into detail on the rather unusual set of announcements that the Government made about the fund, first on 1 April and then very shortly afterwards on 22 April, when it was announced that the fair access limit, or funding per child, would, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, explained, be cut from £5,000 to £3,000 per child per year, and that the £2,500 limit for specialist assessment—which, as I understand it, was in addition to the £5,000—had been abolished. The remaining fund now has to cover both the assessment, judged by the department, I assume, to cost up to £2,500 per child, and the therapy. If we give the department the benefit of the doubt and say that the assessment cost around £1,500, then, being very generous, that leaves about six sessions of funded therapy per year, which for these children is simply insufficient. I am not suggesting that those are the real numbers; they are just my back-of-the-envelope estimates to give the Committee a sense of what is happening here.
Hence the importance of this amendment, which focuses on the per-child funding level and seeks to bring some clarity to the amounts needed. In her Written Ministerial Statement, the Minister said that the ASGF—that is a new acronym for me—
“will still enable those eligible to access a significant package of therapeutic support, tailored to meet their individual needs”.
Can the Minister give the Committee some examples of what the department considers to be a significant package of therapeutic support that could be funded from £3,000, including the assessments?
The issue of therapeutic support is, of course, broader than just this fund. On my visit to Capstone Foster Care, I learned of the difficulty of receiving funding for therapeutic work and the bureaucracy involved in retaining it. This feels so short-sighted as local authorities search for a sound placement—defined in the sector, as I understand it, as a standard placement that does not have additional therapeutic support funding attached to it—which then, perhaps predictably, breaks down and potentially needs to be substituted with a placement in a children’s home at many times the cost.
This is at a time when we hear that funding from integrated care boards for safeguarding work will be cut by around 50% and that the threshold for health involvement is simply too high to be useful. The cuts to the fund will result in a loss of adopters and special guardians, who find—as we heard very powerfully from noble Lords who spoke earlier—that without this support they simply cannot take on these responsibilities. The very late announcement has led to a backlog and will require almost half of applicants to reapply, as their original application does not meet the new threshold.
I wondered what estimate or cost-benefit analysis—and I appreciate that the human cost is far more important than the financial one—the department has done on the savings from the cuts to the fund set against the cost of potential breakdowns. If the Minister does not have those figures with her, perhaps she could write to me with them. As other noble Lords have said, this decision feels like an error, and I hope that the Minister will urge her ministerial colleagues to accept these amendments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 6. This is the second group of amendments in a row where I think that, quite rightly, we in this Committee will recognise the enormously important contribution made by those people willing to take children into their homes and families as a result of adoption. As other noble Lords have said, and as I know from having spoken to people who have adopted children, it is something that can bring enormous pleasure, satisfaction and completion to some families, and is often very much wished for by families. However, because of the nature of the experiences that children have gone through and the history of some of those children, notwithstanding that a family when adopting a child take on responsibility for that child and they become part of their family, I completely understand the need for there to be ongoing support for children in those circumstances.
Without going too far into history, one of the very first pieces of legislation that I did the last time round when I was a Minister was the Bill that became the Adoption and Children Act 2002. At that point, there was still quite a lot of discussion and debate about whether it was legitimate to provide any support for children in adoptive families. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed as a result of these amendments, it is the case that considerable progress has been made in understanding the nature of the challenge and the reward that comes from adoption, the types of experiences that children may well have had before going into adoption, the impact that that has on families, and the requirement to provide support on an ongoing basis for children who are adopted. I recognise that the amendments in this group cover that issue of support for adoptive and kinship children, as well as how we can ensure and review the quality of adoption support that is being provided.
This is a significant area, to which the Government are committed. Although there are some difficult elements in the amendments, I am nevertheless pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Watson have tabled them and enabled us to talk about adoption.
I reiterate the point I previously made about fostering. The fact that something is not covered in this particular piece of legislation should not be taken as some sort of statement about the significance of that issue for this Government, or about its importance for children and families. The point of legislation is to address those areas which have shortcomings in the legislative framework. Our view, certainly at this moment in time, is that the adoption legislation framework is fit for purpose, and our focus needs to be on supporting Adoption England and regional adoption agencies to improve local practice and set national standards so that there are high-quality adoption services across the country. That needs to be the priority, rather than thinking about how and whether we need to change legislation. Adoption is a priority for this Government and will remain so. Of course, most importantly, it is a vital permanence option for some children.
On the points made about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, I note the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the history of adoption—
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
It is actually Lord Russell. I have told this to the House before, but in 1959 my grandfather and Bertrand Russell—the then Earl Russell—jointly wrote a letter to the editor of the Times that said: “Dear Sir, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other. Yours, Russell, Russell of Liverpool”.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am glad to know that I am not the only person who has made that mistake. I apologise to the Chamber and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell.
The noble Lord talked about the important work done by the all-party group and part of the history of ensuring that there is sufficient focus through government activity to provide the necessary support for adoptive families. The adoption and special guardianship support fund has given valuable support to over 53,000 individual children over the 10 years that it has been in place. Many have received support for multiple years, which is a point that I will return to when talking about the criteria.
The Government have continued to support the ASGSF; we provided £50 million for 2025-26. There has been an increase in demand—some noble Lords argued it was an increase in need. Then you face a challenge, regardless of how much money is allocated, as to whether you provide more support for fewer children and families, or ensure a level of support for a larger number of children and families.
The revised funding criteria effective from April 2025 will continue to enable children to receive an excellent level of support, many at similar levels to before, and £3,000-worth of therapy remains a substantial amount of support. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the assessment, children and families receive this support over several years and I think I am right in saying that this £3,000 would include the assessment. Perhaps the next year or the year after that, it would not be necessary to redo the assessment, and £3,000 would fund 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current average costings. As I say, there are many children and families who are receiving similar levels of support as before, although I recognise the case brought to the attention of this Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, where families have seen that as a cut in the provision that they have been able to receive.
Local authorities can continue to supplement available funding locally through the mainstream children’s services budget, if assessments deem this necessary. As I have said, the revised criteria will ensure that all children can continue to receive support. It is important to recognise the significance of the contribution that this support provides, even if in some cases it does not feel as though it is enough support to respond to the considerable challenges that families are facing. For that reason, the Government recognise that recent changes to funding levels came unexpectedly, and therefore local areas had limited time to plan.
I hope I can provide some reassurance that applications under the revised criteria are now being not only received but processed as speedily as possible, so that children can receive the therapy that they need. The Government will continue to assess the implementation of adoption support arrangements, including the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be taking forward discussions on the delivery and management of funds in future years. Across the department, we have heard the concerns that have been expressed in the Committee this evening and, most importantly, that have come from the families affected.
The ASGSF, like other government expenditure, is subject to business planning decisions following the spending review, and these decisions will obviously need to take into account the full range of government priorities. The ASGSF is not a statutory arrangement. We believe that it should remain flexible to provide an effective service, and that it would not be helpful—as proposed in these amendments—for decisions on funding levels to be made in isolation from consideration of other budgets. However, as I say, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I have just checked, and I think the Minister mentioned that, with the £3,000, the average number of sessions that would be allowed is about 12.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The range of applications for the support fund over the last few years has typically been between 20 and 50 sessions per annum, so it is right on the margin.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I did say that it would fund 19 to 20 hours. I also made the point that this is something that does not happen within only one year; it is something that can continue, in order to provide support.
However, I also said that I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament. We will of course take these issues into account when making decisions about how to allocate funding from the DfE budget for future years. I hope this will assure noble Lords that we are considering these issues very carefully.
On Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I agree with my noble friend that adoption support should be high-quality. Of course, Ofsted already reviews how well authorities are delivering adoption services and publishes reports on each authority every three years. The Secretary of State has powers under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to require Ofsted to provide information on or conduct an inspection of any specified function of the local authority that falls within its remit, which may include adoption support services. Ofsted reports regularly on adoption support in local authorities, children’s social care inspection reports and on adoption agencies.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Watson and Lord Meston, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my friend Munira Wilson in the other place for raising this issue.
The Minister is right. My father was adopted: surprisingly, he was adopted by a single woman. In those days, no support at all was given. But now we recognise the contribution that parents who adopt children give. We should be giving them all the support we possibly can, because every failed adoption is a failure for us.
On the particular case that I encountered, there was a two-and-a-half year-old boy who had been seriously traumatised—I will not tell you how he was traumatised, although I know. He had therapy and then that therapy stopped, which just seems unbelievable. He presumably will regress; I just do not know.
However, the Minister has given me some crumbs of comfort, and perhaps we can hope that, as a caring, tolerant society, we can support not just this boy but any child who is adopted and who needs that kind of therapy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.