Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Department works collaboratively across Government and law enforcement agencies to investigate welfare fraud perpetrated by organised criminal gangs. This type of criminality is complex and far-reaching, and a collaborative approach is therefore essential. I am pleased to confirm that new powers in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will help us better tackle organised crime by taking greater control of our investigations through new powers of entry, search and seizure.
Mr Charters
Having spent my career before entering this place tackling fraud, I recognise the scale of the challenge, so I commend the Secretary of State for her leadership, with the biggest ever crackdown on benefit fraud. Given the success of whistleblower reward schemes in tax and financial crime, does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is merit in exploring similar schemes to uncover organised fraud in the benefits system, so that more funds can be recovered to support those who genuinely need support: our constituents?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We take all allegations of fraud seriously. People who suspect fraud against the Department for Work and Pensions can use existing channels to report it, including the national benefit fraud hotline. This Government are not complacent. As I mentioned in my substantive reply, we are taking action with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which will provide a range of new powers to address fraud and error in the social security system, after the Conservative party failed to substantively update our powers to tackle ever-more complex fraud during 14 long years in office. However, I will watch with interest whether there is learning from the schemes my hon. Friend mentioned that could be applied to cases of benefit fraud.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Organised gangs operate in many spheres—sex, drugs and, as reported in the media, our welfare system. This totally undermines public confidence in the system. Will the Minister make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that foreign nationals who are found to have abused our welfare system are removed from the country?
Andrew Western
I am very happy to raise with the Home Office the issue that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but I would say to him, and indeed to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, that what genuinely undermines confidence in the welfare system is the record of the previous Government, who allowed welfare fraud to spiral towards £10 billion a year and failed to take the powers needed, as we are doing now, to get that number down.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
If I may briefly say so, I am very proud that the spending review delivered the largest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people—quadrupling what we inherited from the last Government to over £1 billion a year, or a total of £3.5 billion over this Parliament—so that those who can work get the support they need, while we protect those who can never work.
Tackling child poverty is my personal priority, so I am proud that the Education Secretary and I are bringing in free school meals for all children in families on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty—a down payment on our child poverty strategy. We are also delivering the first ever three-year funding settlement for the household support fund, including for holiday hunger, and we are committed to funding the holiday activities and food programme, stopping kids going hungry while they are at school and during the holidays, too.
Gregor Poynton
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. One of the best ways of reducing child poverty is helping parents into good, stable and well-paid jobs, which the SNP Scottish Government are failing abjectly to do. For example, the SNP manifesto in 2021 promised to double investment in the paternal employment fund to £15 million over two years to help low-income families get into work. However, in 2023 that pledge was scrapped. Will the Secretary of State call on the Scottish Government to put some of their record funding into employability funds, to help my Livingston constituents get into work and to provide good jobs right across Scotland?
Liz Kendall
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Economic inactivity is higher in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, and a staggering one in six young Scots are not in education, employment or training. We have delivered an extra £9 billion for Scotland over the spending review—the biggest settlement in the history of devolution—and I hope the SNP will match our ambition to get people who can work into work by investing in employment services, not cutting them, as they have in recent years.
Alex McIntyre
The expansion of free school meals will massively help families in my constituency of Gloucester and take them out of poverty. Can the Secretary of State confirm how many more families in Gloucester will be eligible for free school meals under the Government’s expansion, and what steps is she taking with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that every child is able to access that support?
Liz Kendall
This vital step will benefit 7,560 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It comes on top of rolling out free breakfast clubs, starting with Calton and Grange primary schools in his constituency, our new fair repayment rate in universal credit, and the first ever permanent, above-inflation increase in the standard allowance of universal credit, a vital part of our welfare reforms, putting more money into the pockets of hard-working families and helping to give all children the best start in life.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
At the lobby last week by the food banks, a number of people expressed the wish to have greater facilities to educate their clients with respect to shopping and preparing meals more effectively. They make a fair point, don’t they?
Liz Kendall
As the former chair of Feeding Leicester, I know that many of our food banks offer a range of support, helping to signpost people to mental health treatment, debt advice and other measures to improve their wellbeing. They certainly do not need any advice from Conservative Members. Under their watch, we saw 900,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in poverty. It is time they took a lesson from this side of the House to get this issue right.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Probably the largest single driver of child poverty in my communities is the enormous cost of housing. The average house price in my community is up to 13 times average household incomes. That drives grinding poverty, particularly among children. Will the Secretary of State have a word with her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that a disproportionate amount of housing grant goes to rural communities such as mine, in particular with the Windermere Gateway scheme?
Liz Kendall
Reducing housing costs is one of the key things we are looking at in the child poverty taskforce in advance of our strategy, which we will publish in the autumn. We are investing an additional £39 billion in building more social, affordable and other homes, but I will, of course, always raise all issues relating to housing, because kids deserve to live in good homes that are affordable. That is what this Government intend to achieve.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
As is the case for my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), a number of my constituents are affected by the two-child cap, with the latest statistics showing that 330 households in my constituency are impacted. I absolutely agree with a number of charities that removing the cap alone is not a silver bullet to tackle child poverty, but it will make a difference. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the child poverty taskforce is considering the removal of the two-child cap?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. I can absolutely confirm that the child poverty strategy will be looking at all the levers we need to tackle this really important issue, including in relation to social security. She is impatient for change for her constituents, as am I. We have already put in place a fair repayment rate for universal credit, we are increasing the standard allowance for universal credit for the first time in its history, and we are rolling out free school meals, but I will of course take her representations forward and ensure that they are heard by the taskforce.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
When the Government’s own impact assessment for the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper suggests that 50,000 children will be plunged into poverty and businesses are already slashing vacancies in the light of the Employment Rights Bill, does the Secretary of State really believe that the Government’s child poverty taskforce is pushing in the same direction as the rest of the Government?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman will know that that assessment does not take into account all the steps that we are taking to get more sick and disabled people into work, with the biggest ever investment into support—support that was denied to them by Conservative Members, who wrote people off, consigned them to a life on benefit and then blamed them. We take a different approach. We believe that sick and disabled people should have the same rights, chances and choices to work as anybody else. That will be a key measure in tackling poverty.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
We all know the importance of work, and since the election we have seen employment rise by 500,000, but Britain is a country that has too few young adults in work or education, and where the post-pandemic employment recovery has taken too long. That is why we will continue our reforms to support more people into work.
Julia Lopez
To cut spending and balance the books, Labour has to get people off welfare, but the Chancellor’s job tax and the Deputy Prime Minister’s unemployment Bill mean that there are fewer jobs for them to go to. Some 285 more of my constituents are out of work than last year, and since the Budget a quarter of a million jobs have vanished. A rise in public sector roles in the same period is probably masking a far deeper crisis going on in the private sector. There is no joined-up thinking. Has the Secretary of State warned her Cabinet colleagues that their policies are making her job impossible?
Torsten Bell
The Secretary of State inherited a labour market that was a mess under the Conservatives, with nearly 1 million young people not in education or training, and 2.8 million too sick to work. Employment is up by 500,000. Economic inactivity—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not like to hear it, but economic inactivity is down by 300,000 under this Government. No one on the Government Benches will take lectures on a good labour market from the Conservatives.
Sir Ashley Fox
Unemployment is now 115,000 higher than when Labour took office. The Chancellor’s new jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill make hiring a new person more expensive. The family farms and family business taxes are reducing investment. Can the Minister therefore explain how he will reduce unemployment while the Chancellor is pursuing policies that increase it?
Torsten Bell
I do not want to try the patience of the House but, as I have said, employment is up by 500,000 under this Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to talk about that. The hon. Gentleman mentions what British business wants—what British business wants is a Government who are actually fixing the public finances and the public services that mean that when a member of staff gets sick, they do not sit on a waiting list for years, as they did under the previous Government. The Conservatives like to attack the Employment Rights Bill, but stopping good employers being undercut by bad is the pro-business thing to do.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Paisley jobcentre runs a “Take a job to work” day, where work coaches look for local employment opportunities and take those suggestions into the jobcentre to match jobseekers with local jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good example of local innovation in jobcentres, and would the Government consider sharing that good practice across the rest of the country?
Torsten Bell
I thank everyone in Paisley who has been working on those practices—it is exactly the kind of innovation we like to see. Under the Conservatives, only one in six employers said they bothered to engage with their local jobcentre, which is exactly what we need to change with our reforms to Jobcentre Plus. I thank everyone in Paisley, but there is much more to do right across the UK.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The previous Government left us with one in eight young people out of work, training or education, and with 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, not only costing the economy billions more but costing people opportunity, hope and dignity, and now the Conservatives cannot even agree a plan among themselves to address that. Does the Minister agree that the Conservative party is in chaos, while this Government are bringing forward sensible plans to give the country a way forward after the mess the Conservatives left it in?
Torsten Bell
That was a powerful and long question, and I am glad that Conservative Members listened to every word of it, because they left us 1 million young people not in education, employment or training—that is what a disgrace looks like. What is happening now? We have seen falling numbers of NEETs over the past quarter and the past year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman’s Government told people they were U-turning on winter fuel payments because the economy is on a “firmer footing”. The next day, the unemployment figures were released, showing that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the Chancellor’s job-taxing Budget. The country is now losing 100,000 jobs a month. These figures are worse than even the most pessimistic forecast. Is that what a firm footing looks like to the hon. Gentleman?
Torsten Bell
A firm footing for economic recovery looks like kicking the Conservative party out of office and growing the economy once again, and that is what we see if we look at the data. The hon. Lady likes to look at one month’s data—well, let us look at it. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that vacancies rose by 27% between April and May. I know the Conservatives want to pretend that everything was wonderful a year ago, but every business and every voter in this country knows that that was not the case.
Helen Whately
Honestly, who does the Minister think he is fooling with this spiel? Growth forecasts have been slashed and inflation has surged. What world is he living in? The Government have been in office for a year and people are losing their jobs because of the decisions that they have made. How does he think his “everything’s fine” mantra actually sounds to one of the people who have lost their jobs or to a business facing a tax bill that it cannot afford? Has the Secretary of State even told her Back Benchers, who will be strong-armed into voting for cuts next week, that the welfare cuts Bill that we will be debating will get a grand total of zero people into work, according to the Government’s own impact assessment?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady asks about what is going on with the economy. What is going on is that we have had four rate cuts over the past year. What is going on is that we have signed three trade deals over the past year. What is going on is that employment has gone up and inactivity has gone down. I know that the Opposition love to latch on to one month’s data, but let us look at the whole period of this Government: wages have increased by more under this party in the past 10 months than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The current PIP application process is outdated and can be very difficult to follow. Alongside proposed legislative changes, the Department’s health transformation programme will greatly improve the experience of applying and, I hope, increase confidence in the outcomes of the assessment as a result.
Victoria Collins
The response to my recent written question on disability benefits applications listed the 18 most common disabilities and health conditions and showed that hundreds of thousands of people were awarded fewer than four points in all living activities and will miss out on the daily living component of PIP. They include people like Jemima in Harpenden, who suffers from severe physical disabilities and thyroid cancer and finds even walking very difficult. Will the Government please commit to reforming the criteria to better reflect the full complexity of claimants’ conditions?
Sir Stephen Timms
I recognise that many people who are on the PIP daily living component who did not get four points on anything at their last assessment are feeling rather anxious. However, what they need to know—I hope the hon. Member will reassure her constituents on this—is that it is the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility that most of them will nevertheless still have their PIP after their fresh assessment once the changes have been introduced. They will be introduced in November next year and an individual’s assessment will take place whenever their first award review is after that date. The OBR is confident and clear that most of those people will keep their PIP.
Charlotte Cane
Over 4,500 people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire claim PIP, and they are not just anxious, as you put it; they are seriously worried that they are going to lose the payments and, with them, their independence. Contrary to what you said—sorry, contrary to what the Minister said—the Government’s own data suggests that 85% of people getting standard payments and 11.5% of those getting enhanced payments will lose support under the proposed changes. What steps is the Minister taking to support those who will be affected, including to make sure that their health and eligible care needs are met and, most importantly, that they can maintain their independence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I suggest that, in future, shorter questions might prevent mistakes such as “you”.
Sir Stephen Timms
It is really important for claimants of PIP that its funding should be sustainable into the future. The trajectory of the past few years has been unsustainable. We are taking action to put that right. The hon. Member is wrong to say that because people did not get four points last time, they will not keep their PIP. As I said, the view of the OBR, which I think is correct, is that most of them will. We are consulting on how to support those who will lose their PIP as a result of the changes that we have announced.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Ministers have highlighted that the PIP recipients who are expected to lose payments make up one in 10 of the total PIP caseload. That suggests that the impact of the cuts will be limited, but it still represents 370,000 current recipients, who are expected to lose £4,500 on average. However, those numbers rest on a set of assumptions that the OBR has described as “highly uncertain”. DWP data shows that 1.3 million people currently receiving PIP daily living payments would not meet the new criteria. Before MPs are asked to vote on imposing such appalling poverty, will the DWP or the OBR provide further evidence underpinning those claims?
Sir Stephen Timms
The OBR has published its assessment, and my hon. Friend is right that it has assessed that one in 10 of those receiving PIP in November next year will have lost it by 2029-30—one in 10; not the much larger proportion that we were hearing about earlier. Following that, we will be able to introduce the biggest ever investment in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds. We do not want any longer to trap people on low incomes for years and years; we want people to be able to enter work and fulfil their ambitions. That is what the investment will allow.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Is it not the simple and sad truth that any MP who votes for the upcoming welfare Bill will be voting to take PIP from disabled people who need assistance to cut up their food, wash themselves and go to the toilet?
Sir Stephen Timms
No. Members will be voting for reforms to open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far too long. We are putting that right.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are putting in place a fairer system. Action was urgently needed. In the year before the pandemic, PIP cost the Government £12 billion at current prices, and last year it cost £22 billion. It also went up last year alone by £2.8 billion. PIP required urgent action, and that is what we are taking.
Danny Kruger
I am just sorry that there has been so little consultation with the victims of the changes that the Government are introducing. One area where the Government do not seem to be looking for savings is in the Motability scheme. It was supposed to help physically disabled people get around, but now we have 100,000 new people a year joining the scheme, many of them not physically disabled at all. One in five of all new car purchases are bought through this scheme, and it is costing taxpayers nearly £3 billion a year. I know that the Minister will blame us for the system, but the fact is that the Government are not even looking at Motability. They have had a year, and it is their policy now. Will the Minister commit to a proper review of the Motability scheme, and if not, why not?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am not sure whether the shadow Minister wants me to go further or not so far—he seems to be facing both ways. He is right that we are not at this point proposing any changes to the Motability scheme.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?
Sir Stephen Timms
Among households as a whole, there will be more net gainers than net losers from the package. The reason for that is the increase to the standard allowance of universal credit, which according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies is the biggest increase to the headline rate of benefit since at least 1980. We are consulting on support for those who will lose carer’s allowance because of the changes and considering what additional help they may need, including for health and care needs. The hon. Member will have seen in the Bill we have published that we have committed to a 13-week run-on of benefit after an assessment decision so that people have time to adjust to the new situation.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
We are building a new jobs and careers service for all, including those on universal credit, as the cornerstone of our Get Britain Working reforms. This new service will build towards an 80% employment rate, closing the gaps between disabled people and others and between parents and those without caring responsibilities, and dealing with the crisis in youth unemployment. We are also changing universal credit to stop people being left on the scrapheap, as per our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper.
Josh Simons
Last week, I held an emergency community meeting for 250 workers in my constituency who are about to lose their jobs following the closure of the electric fibreglass site in Hindley Green. It was heartbreaking. Some families have three generations of workers who have powered the blast furnace and produced materials for our energy, defence and housing sectors. I am bitterly disappointed that after the hard graft of the Government, me, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the GMB union, it has come to this, and another foreign company is closing a blast furnace in our country. What is the Minister doing to get workers like those back into work, so that they can do what they want to do, which is contribute to a strong industrial future?
Alison McGovern
Specifically on the business that my hon. Friend mentioned, the Department’s rapid response service has worked with those affected and is keen to do more. I will personally ensure that he is put in touch with my colleagues in the Department so that he can help facilitate that, too.
More broadly, like many industrial communities, my hon. Friend’s constituency deserves more good jobs. Our industrial strategy will help lead the way on that, as will the Chancellor’s investment plans set out in the recent spending review. I know that if my hon. Friend feels that we need to do more for his constituency, he will not hold back in telling us.
Katrina Murray
My constituent Tracy is living in local authority temporary accommodation after fleeing domestic violence. She is currently trapped on universal credit because the cost of her accommodation is way beyond anything she could earn locally—by a factor of about 10. As a single young person, she faces years before she is likely to be allocated a flat, and she is rightly concerned that future employers would question her years of unemployment and under-employment. She wants to work full time but has been advised not to do so. Does the Minister agree that we need to do something to address the cliff edge?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that important case to the House. Universal credit has no fixed hours requirement, but the connection between housing costs and universal credit, as she mentioned, is still a problem. I would be keen to look at the detail of her constituent’s case. Universal credit was introduced with the promise that it would move people off benefits and into work, but that clearly has not happened as we need it to happen, so considerable work is under way to deal with the inadequacies of the mess that the Conservative Government left us.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There are 300 more people on out-of-work benefits in Basildon and Billericay than there were 12 months ago. Local businesses tell me that that is because business rates have gone up under the Labour Government, national insurance tax has gone up under the Labour Government and taxes on investment for the long term have gone up under the Labour Government. Does the Minister agree, or has she got another explanation for the fact that 300 more of my constituents are unemployed than there were 12 months ago?
Alison McGovern
Our Department is determined to serve businesses well. If the right hon. Member would like to help his local jobcentre do that and get good jobs into the jobcentre so that we can help his constituents, I am sure that I can facilitate that. However, he should be aware that employment is up and inactivity is down. We are moving towards an 80% employment rate, and the Chancellor’s investment plans, as she set out in the spending review, will help us move towards that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Government’s proposals to change benefits have a compound consequence for people wanting to stay in work. For example, the Department has said that 95,000 working-age claimants receive carer’s allowance and, under the proposals, would lose the PIP they receive. Does the Minister agree that those proposals will actually make it harder for people to stay in work, rather than easier as they claim?
Alison McGovern
As the Secretary of State set out some moments ago, we are introducing the biggest improvement to employment support that the country has known. We will ensure that people receive the help they need to get into work and to stay in work.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The issue of economic abuse through the Child Maintenance Service is a serious one, which this Government are looking to address urgently. I am pleased to say that a response to the “Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments” consultation was published earlier today. We intend to reform the CMS into a single service type, where the CMS collects and transfers all payments. This reform will drastically reduce opportunities for economic abuse throughout the service and make sure that money gets to the children who need it. We estimate that this change alone could lift more than 20,000 children out of poverty.
Sarah Green
I have too many constituents whose financial abuse is effectively being perpetuated and facilitated by the Child Maintenance Service. I have secured a meeting with the relevant Minister in the other place, but it has been postponed. Could the Minister help me to secure a date for that meeting? I am sure that he would agree that if the system is at fault, it needs to change.
Andrew Western
I hope the hon. Member has heard me say that we concur with the need for change. We have announced changes in the right direction today, and I will of course pick up with my fellow Minister about securing that meeting for her. I know they have already been in protracted talks about arranging it, and I will make sure it happens.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My constituent, Deborah, should receive monthly child maintenance payments for her daughter, but her former partner withholds payments, despite my complaints and hers to the DWP Child Maintenance Service complaints team, advising them that he deliberately withholds payments for three months and then backdates them. That is a form of abuse and controlling behaviour, but the DWP complaints team have advised me today that there is nothing they can do to prevent it, despite a deduction-from-earnings order being in place. Does the Minister agree that that is a completely inadequate response that requires a ministerial review of the system?
Andrew Western
I am sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend has highlighted. He will have heard the reform that I announced earlier, but I absolutely understand why he wants to raise this issue for his constituent, and if he would like to meet me to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
The short answer to that question is yes. The Department is contributing to two consultations that will shortly be published by the Business and Energy Departments. They will invite views on the new UK sustainability reporting standards and transition plans. This will help investors, including pension savers and their schemes, to understand the impact of climate and nature on investments.
Anna Gelderd
As a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on sustainable finance and on global deforestation, I remain concerned that around £388 billion in UK pension savings is still invested in fossil fuels and deforestation-related activities. Will the Minister reassure me further that undermining the long-term financial security of savers in South East Cornwall is not the Government’s intention, and will he commit to reviewing this, including via the Pension Schemes Bill and the landmark pensions review?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner on this issue for some years, and she will know that larger pension schemes are now required to publish annual reports with climate-related disclosures. The evidence shows that around two thirds of pension funds have a net zero commitment in place, and we will be reviewing those regulations over the course of this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is very important that those who have pensions get a return, so that their pensions are beneficial. It is also important to ensure that net zero is delivered, because many people who have pensions want to see that happen. It is about getting a balance, so how will the Minister get that balance?
Torsten Bell
On the first part of the hon. Member’s question, I do not want to get the balance, because we want to make sure that savers get the absolute best value they can for every buck they save. I completely endorse his sentiment on that part; that is the very purpose of the Pension Schemes Bill that is coming through. On the second part of his question, I also endorse the point that he makes. When we look at those disclosures, we see that they set out a balance of judgments about the requirements on schemes, but they also provide greater transparency so that both individuals and the schemes themselves can take a view about the investments.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Many disabled people want to work, but only 17% of people on personal independence payments are in employment. We believe that disabled people should have the same rights, chances and choices to work as anybody else, which is why we are delivering the biggest ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, quadrupling what we inherited from the Tories to over £1 billion a year, and it is why we have asked the former boss of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, to review what more we can do to support employers to recruit and retain more disabled people.
Helen Maguire
One of my constituents, who has epilepsy, responded to the “Pathways to Work” consultation and highlighted that the questions implied that the Department views PIP as a pity payment, rather than a benefit designed to offset the extra costs of disability, such as seizure alert devices or accessible transport. Without such support, disabled people are less able to live independently. Does the Minister agree that cutting PIP payments simply pushes more disabled people further from living independently and from employment?
Liz Kendall
I do not recognise the attitude that the hon. Member describes—quite frankly, we feel precisely the opposite. This vital benefit makes a crucial contribution towards the extra costs of living with a disability. That is why we want to reform it to protect it for generations to come, because we do not think that it is sustainable to have a doubling of the number of people on PIP over this decade from 2 million to more than 4.3 million. It is also why we are putting in extra employment support, why we want to support employers to do more to recruit and retain disabled people, and why we want to reform Access to Work—a vital scheme that helps people—because disabled people should have equal rights, chances and choices to work, and that is what we seek to deliver.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning, I had the pleasure of visiting PACT for Autism, a brilliant local charity in Harlow. It raised concerns about the accessibility of the PIP application process for those with autism. As the Department looks to reform the process, could that be considered?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely will consider that. In fact, I ask my hon. Friend and his constituents to feed into the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is doing. We have to ensure that it is as easy and effective as possible to access that vital benefit. It is crucial for people with autism, and we want to make it work properly.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Given our objective to reduce the number of children in poverty overall, I expect the impact of the child poverty strategy on children in Stroud to be positive, as all children benefit when the whole community can rely on children enjoying a good childhood. We will publish the child poverty strategy as soon as possible, but, as we have said, we are not waiting to act. The Secretary of State has listed a number of initiatives that we have already been getting on with.
Dr Opher
In Stroud, after 14 years of austerity, over 4,000 children are living in poverty. A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report stated that after removing the two-child limit, the next most effective way of reducing child poverty is to get rid of the benefit cap. Would the Minister be willing at least to review the benefit cap?
Alison McGovern
As the Secretary of State has already said, all policies that can lift children out of poverty are under consideration by the taskforce. We obviously will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it; neither, as I have said, will we wait to act if there are steps we can take immediately. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I will take as input to the child poverty taskforce. I also take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have participated in the five parliamentary sessions that the taskforce has hosted since November 2024.
Luke Akehurst
Will the Minister give an update on the work the Department is doing with the North East Mayor Kim McGuinness’s child poverty reduction unit to tackle the specific drivers of that issue in our region?
Alison McGovern
Child poverty is a significant challenge in the north-east, and that is why it is right that Mayor Kim McGuinness participated in an early session of the taskforce and has shaped the agenda since then. The child poverty reduction unit engages regularly with colleagues from the north-east and will hold a dedicated session on strategy with the north-east child poverty commission this week. Mayors have been absolutely critical to the development of the strategy, and we will continue to work closely with them.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
As in Stroud and the north-east, children in poverty rely on food banks to get by—6,617 food parcels in my constituency alone. Will the Government take the advice of the Trussell Trust and seek and follow independent advice on the universal credit standard allowance?
Alison McGovern
As Labour’s manifesto said, the emergency food parcels that we have seen are a “moral scar” on our country. That is why I am glad that, as Ministers have said, we are increasing the standard allowance for the first time in—as long as I can remember, certainly. I am also pleased that emergency food parcels were down this year.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
If a person is out of work and is offered a job, they are required to accept appropriate work that is offered to them. The focus of our Get Britain Working reforms is to address the current situation whereby nearly 3 million people are out of work sick and not actively looking for work, and 1.7 million people are out of work but are not getting the help they deserve from the existing jobcentre system.
Sir Julian Smith
R and J Yorkshire’s Finest butchers in Kirkby Malzeard have had multiple job applications via jobcentres from people who they think never had an intention of going to interview or taking a job. May I urge the Minister to look at how incentives and penalties are matched up, to ensure that people actually turn up to interview and take a job?
Alison McGovern
The right hon. Gentleman mentions a problem that I think is central to the situation that we have inherited. That is why, as I mentioned in response to the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), we are changing the way that DWP acts, so that we serve employers better and match people who actually want to move into those jobs. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow me, I will connect him with his local jobcentre manager, so that he can link up the businesses he mentions.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Protecting those who can never work is at the heart of our welfare reforms. That is why, in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, we are ensuring that those with severe, lifelong conditions, which will never improve and which mean they will never work, and those at the end of their lives are guaranteed the higher rate of the universal credit health top-up, protecting one in 10 of all future universal credit health top-up claims. We are also going further by ensuring that those who meet the severe conditions criteria are never again reassessed, in order to stop unnecessary anxiety and stress, helping 200,000 people over this Parliament.
Tom Rutland
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I have been working with disabled constituents, our local jobcentre and employers to ensure that everyone is working together to maximise opportunities for disabled people, and that they are not just recruited but retained and thriving in jobs locally. However, some people will never be able to work or return to work, including many people with advanced progressive multiple sclerosis, and it is right that they are properly supported. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what support will be in place for people like my constituents living with this disease?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing locally. As I said, those with severe lifelong conditions —progressive conditions that will never improve, and which mean they will never work—will be protected. Even more importantly, they will never again be reassessed for their benefits, removing that unnecessary and unacceptable anxiety and stress, and giving them the dignity and security they deserve.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment. A recent freedom of information request by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found that thousands of recipients whose primary health condition is listed as eye disease are set to lose out from the reforms to PIP, with referrals to the RNIB’s counselling services more than doubling since the Secretary of State announced the reforms. There are over 3,500 people in Leicester with sight impairment. What is her Department doing to help those constituents, given these harmful changes to PIP?
Liz Kendall
I know the brilliant work that the RNIB does and the brilliant sight services locally in Leicester—I have visited them myself. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that nine out of 10 people who are claiming PIP when these changes come into place will be unaffected by them. We are going to see 750,000 more people claiming PIP by the end of this Parliament compared with when we are elected, and, even with these changes, spending will still be £8 billion higher.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I am proud of the steps this Labour Government are taking to tackle child poverty. Our historic expansion of free school meals to families on universal credit will lift 100,000 children out of poverty and tackle term-time hunger. That is alongside the £2.5 billion we are investing in the household support fund, and our commitment to funding the holiday activities and food programme, which will tackle holiday hunger too. Making sure that children have hungry minds, not hungry bellies, will help them to fulfil their potential in life, and that is what this Labour Government are all about.
Callum Anderson
Closing the disability employment gap is a matter of opportunity for disabled people in my constituency. I recently visited M&M Supplies, a stand-out company in Bletchley, not only for its many exporting successes but because a quarter of its workforce are adults with learning disabilities and difficulties—and that is thanks mainly to the vision of managing director Frank Purcell, who works with organisations like MK SNAP to run a work experience programme for adults with disabilities. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that this Government are committed to working with employers to ensure that no disabled people in my constituency are written off?
Liz Kendall
I congratulate, through my hon. Friend, those in his constituency on the fantastic work that he has described. I recently visited an incredible supported internship programme that helps young people with learning disabilities to get work and stay in work, including in our local NHS and with our local hotel voco in the heart of Leicester. This Government are determined to tackle the disability employment gap, which fell under the last Labour Government, although movement stalled under the Tories. We are going to turn this around with the biggest ever investment in employment support, introducing mandatory disability pay gap reporting and looking at what more we can do to support brilliant employers, like the one my hon. Friend described, to recruit and retain more disabled people.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?
Liz Kendall
I have great personal respect for the hon. Lady but she really needs to make up her mind: first she says our proposals are too late, then she says they are rushed; she criticises us for being cruel, and then says the Opposition are going to vote against our Bill because it does not go far enough. But her deputy, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), has let the cat out of the bag, saying in a recent Westminster Hall debate:
“I am not able to tell…exactly what we would do.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 301WH.]
The truth is that the Conservatives are a broken party with no ideas, let alone a strategy—and, unless they change course, they have no future either.
Helen Whately
Goodness me; I asked the right hon. Lady quite a serious question, so that was a very disappointing answer. However, she and I are in agreement that the benefits bill needs to come down, and that will need real reform of the system, so why is she pressing ahead in a panic with her half-baked cuts rather than doing the job properly? We would support a proper rethink of which conditions should get what help, and a better system for people struggling with mental health or neurodiversity, who would be better off in work than parked on benefits. Why did not she make that part of her plan?
Liz Kendall
Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are doing to improve mental health support for people in this country and to make sure that it is treated with equal importance to physical health: we have made significant progress towards recruiting the additional 8,500 mental health workers we said we would recruit in our manifesto to reduce delays and provide support; we have confirmed funding to help an extra 380,000 patients get access to talking therapies; and we are investing the biggest ever amount in employment support for sick and disabled people. I say to the hon. Lady, who left 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, that it is about time she apologised to the country and made up her mind about whether she will back our reforms.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I remind Members that topical questions and answers should be brief.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In her March Green Paper, the Secretary of State promised to provide an additional £1 billion in funding to help benefit claimants back into work, but only £400 million has actually been allocated, and even that will not come until 2028-29. We have heard some talk of efficiency savings, which is practically the definition of a magic money tree if ever there was one, so will the Minister confirm that the promised £1 billion for employment support will be all new money, and not cannibalised from other vital DWP services?
Liz Kendall
Yes. Already this year, we are rolling out £300 million of support through our Get Britain Working plan and Connect to Work. That will rise to £600 million next year and build to an additional £1 billion. This is the biggest ever investment into employment support for sick and disabled people, because we believe work is the route out of poverty. We want to build dignity and a better life for those who can work, while protecting those who cannot.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
Yes, I can. That is a firm commitment from me personally, and from the Prime Minister. We have made a start on that work: our expansion of free school meals to children in all households on universal credit will benefit, I think, around 6,500 children in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and we are helping more people into work, which is the best way to tackle poverty in the long term. We have a long way to go, but we are absolutely committed to bringing those numbers down.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Liz Kendall
Yes, we absolutely want that to happen. Indeed, we want to record the assessments as standard to ensure that claimants have confidence in what is being done. This is an issue that causes huge anxiety among my constituents. Too many decisions take too long and are overturned, and we want to deal with these problems head-on.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
I commend my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue, including his seminal 2022 independent review. He is right that care leavers need support as they move to independent living. The Department for Work and Pensions at the moment exempts care leavers from the shared accommodation rate, and provides support toward sustained employment and career progression. We will certainly consider if there is more that we can do.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Liz Kendall
Nine out of 10 people who are on PIP when the changes come in will be unaffected by the end of this Parliament. Anybody who is affected will keep that benefit for three months—that is, I think, one of the longest transitional protections ever and certainly three times as long as when we move from disability living allowance to PIP. The important Access to Work fund is there precisely to help anybody who needs that sort of support to get into work. We will guarantee that during those three months, anyone who is affected and who uses their PIP for work will get access to an adviser who will help them to apply for Access to Work, because it is so important that we support them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend will know that this Labour Government are investing billions extra into the NHS precisely so that we can drive down waits for vital operations and increase the number of people getting mental health treatment. It is also the case that good work is good for physical and mental health. There is very clear evidence on that, and that is one of the things we know that we can achieve with the £1 billion extra a year in employment support.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Matching the Scottish child payment by raising the child element of universal credit would bring more than half a million children out of poverty. The Secretary of State has been clear that a lot of issues are being considered by the child poverty taskforce. Is raising the child element of universal credit to the level of the Scottish child payment one of those matters?
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
At the risk of boring the House, let me say that all levers are very much on the table when it comes to getting our kids out of poverty.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend’s constituent will benefit from the big increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which we have talked about, and from free school meals for her children. Somebody who starts work or increases their hours may also be eligible for support with up-front childcare costs. The flexible support fund can award the full cost for up to a month of fees to a childcare provider in advance of the care being delivered, so that may be an option for his constituent.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?
Alison McGovern
This Government will always have the backs of working people, and I believe there will be a statement shortly on our modern industrial strategy. I know that Ministers from the Department for Business and Trade will be extremely engaged in the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just raised.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Many new mothers in Plymouth are claiming maternity allowance, not because they are unemployed, but because they do not qualify for statutory maternity pay; they may be self-employed, have recently changed jobs or have had a pregnancy-related sickness. Many of them have contacted me with concerns that maternity allowance is treated as unearned income and is therefore subject to universal credit deductions, unlike statutory maternity pay. What steps is the Department taking to ensure financial security for women in Plymouth who are claiming maternity allowance?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The treatment of maternity allowance in universal credit was subject to a judicial review, which upheld the policy of treating it as unearned income when calculating universal credit and of treating SMP paid by employers as earnings, in common with other statutory payments made by employers. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant—may be available to parents.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent Tirath is currently being pursued by the Child Maintenance Service for £20,000, despite having successfully appealed the claim in 2022. He is now at risk of losing his professional status as a pharmacist because of this process. Will the Minister encourage the CMS to investigate that case urgently or to meet with me to discuss it?
Andrew Western
I am very sorry to hear about the plight of the hon. Member’s constituent. If she would like a meeting with me, I am very happy to give her that, and I am also happy to look into the matter, as she suggests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Previous changes in eligibility for disability benefits have resulted in significant adverse health impacts, including an additional 600 suicides in 2010 and 130,000 more people with new onset mental health conditions in 2017. What estimates have the Government undertaken of the impacts on health of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading next week?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am looking forward to answering questions about these matters in front of the Committee on Wednesday morning. We are working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the health and care needs of people who lose benefits as a result of this process are met.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do Ministers agree with the Trussell Trust’s recent estimate that the weekly cost of basic essentials is £120 for a single person and £205 for a couple?
Alison McGovern
Through the child poverty taskforce, we have been looking at the issue of incomes versus expenditures. We are taking steps urgently where we are able, but we will have more to say about that issue shortly.
Middle East
(1 day, 22 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)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Israel-Iran conflict.
Since I last updated the House, the United States has struck three Iranian nuclear sites at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has said that the action was “intentionally limited”. Britain was not involved in the strikes, just as it was not involved in Israel’s operations, but Britain has long had concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and the United States has now taken action to alleviate that threat. A nuclear-armed Iran would endanger the immediate region and threaten the global community.
This is a perilous moment in the middle east. Waves of strikes between Israel and Iran have lasted for 10 days, continuing overnight. I know that the whole House will have in their thoughts the many civilians impacted by the fighting. I can confirm today that they include one British national injured in Israel. We have reached out to offer consular support.
Iran has consistently failed to reassure the world that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. The House will recall Prime Minister Gordon Brown calling out Iran for perpetrating “serial deception” over years after exposure of the fortified Fordow nuclear site. Today, Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is 40 times over the limit set by the joint comprehensive plan of action. Iran is enriching at 60%, while typically, a commercial nuclear reactor such as the one at Sizewell operates with uranium enriched at between 3% and 5%. Iran lacks any civilian justification for this level of nuclear activity, and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors has declared Iran to be in breach of its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
As we respond to this fast-moving situation, our first priority remains the welfare of British nationals in Iran and Israel and of our staff on the ground. Our crisis teams in London and the region have been working around the clock, and Israel has put restrictions on its airspace since Friday 13 June. The British embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate in Jerusalem are open. All our diplomats remain in place supporting British nationals, and we have bolstered the embassy in Tel Aviv with a rapid deployment team from the UK.
We have been working closely with the Israeli authorities to prepare flights to evacuate vulnerable British nationals and their dependants. Yesterday, we launched a booking portal for British nationals. Today, as soon as it was possible to enter Israeli airspace, I can confirm to the House that a Royal Air Force A400 has flown in to Tel Aviv and taken 63 British nationals and their dependants to Cyprus, from where they will be brought home this evening. Further flights will follow in the coming days, security allowing. We will prioritise those with greatest need and contact those allocated a seat directly. We will send updates on future flights to all British nationals registered with the Foreign Office, and I encourage all British nationals still in Israel and the occupied territories to register their presence, so that they receive our updates. These British nationals should follow instructions from the Israeli authorities. International land border crossings to Jordan and Egypt are open, and commercial flights continue from both those countries. Consular teams are on hand to assist British nationals who have crossed the border.
In Iran, airspace remains closed and there has been a near-total internet shutdown. Due to the security situation, we took the precautionary step last Friday of temporarily withdrawing our staff from Iran. The embassy is operating remotely, though our ability to support British nationals still in Iran is extremely limited. The House will know that the Foreign Office has advised against travel to Iran since 2019. Those seeking to cross Iran’s land borders can contact the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for assistance, including with additional paperwork.
British nationals in the wider region should follow our travel advice closely. Following a US security alert for its nationals in Qatar, out of an abundance of caution we now recommend that British nationals in Qatar shelter in place until further notice.
Alongside our consular teams, our diplomats are fully engaged in trying to end this crisis. We can and we must find a negotiated solution. The window has narrowed, but the risks of further escalation are so great, and the costs so considerable for Britain and all in the region, that this is the Government’s priority. We do not yet know precisely how far the US strikes have set back Iran’s nuclear programme, but there remains the need for a durable diplomatic solution. Strikes cannot destroy the knowledge Iran has acquired over several decades, nor any regime ambition to deploy that knowledge to build a nuclear weapon. That is why we have been working so intensively with the new US Administration to reach a new agreement with Iran.
Iran and President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, held five rounds of negotiations. Britain joined France and Germany in seven rounds of engagements with Iran, too. Even after the Israeli strikes, I travelled to Washington and then Geneva last week, meeting in the White House with Secretary Rubio and Witkoff, and then sitting opposite Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi in several hours of talks, pushing for Iran to accept the diplomatic off-ramp. Directly after the US strikes, we have been at the heart of a collective drive with partners to get back to negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has spoken to President Trump. I have spoken to Marco Rubio and Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar. We have both been in touch with European and middle eastern partners. That is why I spoke again to Minister Araghchi yesterday.
My message for Tehran was clear: take the off-ramp, dial this thing down and negotiate with the United States seriously and immediately. The alternative is an even more destructive and far-reaching conflict, which could have unpredictable consequences.
The situation presents serious risks to British interests in the region. Following the moving in of additional assets on a precautionary basis, force protection is at its highest levels. The House should be in no doubt: we are prepared to defend our personnel, our assets, and those of our allies and partners. We are closely monitoring how energy markets are responding to the conflict, and we have been extremely clear with the Iranians: any action to blockade the strait of Hormuz would be a monumental act of economic self-harm, making a diplomatic solution even harder.
We are also maintaining a sharp focus on other conflicts in the region, first and foremost the catastrophic plight of Gazans and the ongoing ordeal of the hostages and their loved ones, all fearing that this war leaves them forgotten. Today I met Eli Sharabi, held in chains by Iranian-backed terrorists, who was released from Hamas captivity only to discover that they had murdered his family. Last week the Israel Defence Forces recovered the bodies of two hostages, as well as that of Shai Levinson, an Israeli with British family killed on 7 October, which Hamas had been cruelly keeping from their loved ones. Half a million Palestinian civilians are facing starvation and more than 400 have reportedly been killed in recent weeks trying to access food, while Gazan hospitals have had to stop services that are vital for childbirth and emergency surgeries. This is appalling, it is unacceptable, and it must finally end. The Israeli Government must lift aid restrictions, and Hamas must release all the hostages. An immediate ceasefire has never been more urgent.
The consequences of the current situation are hard to predict. History can offer us no guide after events that are unprecedented in the region. The Government have sought to react quickly to the twists and turns of recent weeks, while maintaining a focus on where British interests lie—with a lasting end to Iran’s nuclear programme, a de-escalation of tensions, and security for our people across the region. We will continue to persevere with diplomacy.
I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the IAEA produced a report that was damning of the Iranian regime. Iran was not co-operating, and was breaching its obligations. It had more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, far beyond any level needed for a civilian nuclear programme, and enough material to create at least nine nuclear devices, while its nuclear facilities were buried deep underground to hide its programme—and all this from a despotic authoritarian regime that represses and tortures its own people, is committed to the annihilation of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, is responsible for so much of the suffering in the region through its sponsorship of terrorist proxies, is supporting Putin in his illegal war against Ukraine, and is involved in plots and activities to undermine our national security here at home on a daily basis.
It is for these reasons, and for many more, that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. That is why we stand with those who are working to stop them—the House will know that, as His Majesty's Opposition, we will always put the defence and security of our country first—and why we will work constructively with the Government to secure the protection of the British people and our national interests. We will support the Government when they are doing the right thing, but we will also question, challenge and press Ministers to go further when we think that more needs to be done to safeguard our interests, and it is in that spirit of constructive scrutiny in the national interest that I put these questions and points to the Foreign Secretary.
First, British nationals and dual nationals continue to be stranded in Israel and the middle east owing to airspace closures. I have written to the Foreign Secretary about this matter, and note the progress being made with today’s flight. I thank the Foreign Office for the work that it has been doing with many families with whom I have also been in touch, who have been able to get on to that flight today. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how many British nationals may need to be repatriated? What resources are being deployed to support those efforts? Is there enough capacity to match the number of people who need to leave, and why does it seem that the US and other European countries were ahead of us in their operational planning to bring back their citizens? The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the US embassy’s advice, and he has given advice to British nationals in Qatar today. Will there be any further notifications for other British nationals in Gulf Co-operation Council states?
Secondly, on Iran’s nuclear programme, the Foreign Secretary could not say on radio this morning how effective the weekend’s strikes were. I understand that it will take time to get information, but if more strikes to further degrade Iran’s nuclear capacities are planned, will the Government consider supporting them? The Government have not taken a clear position on the actions that the US and Israel have taken, but we have seen reports of the apparent legal advice from the Attorney General cautioning against UK involvement.
While I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary cannot comment on any legal advice, do the Government have a position on the lawfulness of the strikes, and does he welcome the ends as well as the means? Does he share my cynicism about Iran’s attempt to cloak itself in the UN charter—the same UN charter that it has undermined for decades through its brutality? Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the US will be permitted to take action from Diego Garcia should future strikes on Iran or actions to defend Israel be needed, or do the Government think that there are legal barriers to the US doing so?
Thirdly, with heightened tensions in the region, can the Foreign Secretary give an update on what further steps are being taken to safeguard British military assets in the region and our partners from any unwise military action taken by the Iranian regime? Given the reports over the weekend of a suspected Iranian spy plot targeting our base in Cyprus, are we now stepping up efforts to protect bases?
Fourthly, what steps are being taken across Government and with our police, counter-terrorism and security services to reassess the domestic threat level? The Foreign Secretary cannot go into operational details, so can he give an assurance that robust action and disruptions to any potential Iran-backed plots are under way?
He rightly mentioned the issue of Gaza and the fact that we absolutely must work together to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to people who are desperately in need of it. Can the Foreign Secretary update us on what steps he has taken to engage with Israel to get more aid into Gaza, and does he agree that Iran must be weakened to end its ability to sponsor Hamas and other terrorists in the region?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for the co-operative tone in which the right hon. Lady has made her remarks. Quite rightly, she has a number of questions that I will attempt to answer, but let me begin by saying that, fundamentally, we are in agreement that the regime in Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and all our efforts are designed to ensure that that is the case. The whole House will understand that this is not just about Iran, the region and global security; we have to remain steadfast in our commitment not to see nuclear proliferation. If Iran got a nuclear weapon, others in the region would clearly seek to follow. It is, therefore, a sober commitment, beginning 80 years ago, that we must see to completion in relation to those ambitions.
The right hon. Lady asks about British nationals in Israel. Just over 4,000 British nationals have registered their interest following our appeal last week, and judging by the pattern in previous crises in Israel and the region, we estimate that between 15% and 20% of them will take up the offer of British assistance to leave. As she knows, the airspace has been closed, so that offer—until this point—has been about getting them to the border, but I am very pleased that a flight has landed and taken off, and we hope to work with the Israeli Government on further flights from the area. My understanding is that the Americans have put on a military plane from Israel for its citizens, but she will understand that the uniqueness of the relationship between the United States and Israel facilitated that opening, and I am very pleased we have been able to garner the same agreement with the Israeli Government. This is an ongoing and fast-moving situation, and she has heard what I have advised British nationals in Qatar today. Of course, we keep this under close review, and there may need to be further updates over the next few days.
It was important that I was in Washington DC to sit down with the US Administration, and in that meeting with Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff last week, it was very clear to me that all options were on the table and that President Trump had those options in front of him. I of course discussed with them in detail the trip I would be making to Geneva, alongside my French and German counterparts and the European High Representative, and they were keen and hopeful that it might be successful. It was not successful, but we continue to press the Iranians to take the off ramp and get into negotiations with the United States and the E3 to ensure that they are in compliance.
The right hon. Lady asked about the legal advice. That must rightly be a matter for the US Government in relation to their action. I am pleased that she mentioned the ministerial code. She will know that paragraph 2.13 of the ministerial code prevents those of us in government —and she has been in government in the past—discussing legal advice so that Government can operate in the appropriate way. However, I would say to her that this was not our action. We have been clear that we were not involved. She asked whether we had any request from the US Government. We did not get such a request, but we were notified before the action took place.
The right hon. Lady also asked about state threats, and it is right to say that we have thwarted 20 such state threats in this country since 2022. She will know, including from the fact that we put Iran in the highest tier for national interference, that we take the threats from Iran very seriously. We are reviewing the gaps that Jon Hall found in how we deal with state threats in our country, and we will come forward with legislation in the coming months.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The only way to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb is a deal, but there cannot be a deal without negotiations and there cannot be negotiations without trust. President Trump tore up the first nuclear deal and is now acting alongside Israel, and its attack last week ended the US-Iran negotiations for a new nuclear deal. The war aims of this campaign are so unclear, with an emboldened Netanyahu Government calling for regime change, and President Trump hinting at it, too. In all those circumstances, it is difficult to see how there can be negotiations based on trust. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain must continue to play a role in the negotiations, even though they must seem an incredibly difficult and challenging prospect?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for her question. It goes to the heart of where the UK should be at this time, and that is at the centre of the diplomatic effort. a diplomatic effort will be necessary at the end of this process because, sadly, once people have the ability to enrich uranium to 60%, that knowledge is not lost. It is the stepping stone to an advanced weapon, and therefore only a diplomatic solution and the correct framework can ensure that we keep the global community safe.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
The Liberal Democrats share in the condemnation of an Iranian regime that poses an existential threat to Israel and has terrorised its own people as surely as it has citizens from other countries around the world, including the UK. That is why we support the consensus in this House that Iran can never be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Yet it is not clear that military action by Israel and the US can provide the necessary long-term lock on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Following this weekend’s strikes, it was reported that Iran will work at pace to develop weapons with what remains of its enriched uranium supplies. That should give pause to those on the Conservative and Reform Benches who have breathlessly echoed President Trump’s line that the strikes have been an unrivalled success. Instead of bringing security, Trump and Netanyahu’s unilateral actions have increased uncertainty and the risk of a full-scale regional war. Their belief that might is right both further erodes the rules-based international order and undermines the prospects of containing Iran and other rogue states in the long term. This is not the UK’s interest.
That is why Liberal Democrats have called consistently for the application of robust diplomacy, supported by International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring and grounded in international law, as the only sustainable way permanently to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Our immediate priority must now be to ensure the safety and support of British nationals in the region, learning the lessons of unacceptable delays on previous occasions, so why has it taken over a week since the start of strikes to begin repatriating Britons from Israel? What more is being done to support those in the wider region who want to leave?
The Government have also remained silent on the legality of this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary now commit to publishing the Attorney General’s advice on whether any UK involvement in the conflict would constitute a breach of international law? Will he confirm that this House will be given a vote before any decision for the UK to enter this conflict?
Mr Lammy
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and the thrust of his remarks, which are around the need for diplomacy at this time. He is absolutely right about the malign intent of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian regime, whose desire is to wipe Israel off the map. We must stand up to that pernicious ideology. We are attempting to, again, de-escalate. I remind him that Vice-President Vance said just yesterday that delaying the development of a nuclear weapon was the goal. He said, “We are at war with Iran’s nuclear programme. We are not at war with the Iranian people.” It is important for the hon. Gentleman to keep that in his mind’s eye.
The hon. Gentleman asks about British nationals. He heard what I said about the airspace being closed. I am pleased that the first flight has taken off. I remind him of successive UN resolutions—I refer him in particular to resolution 2231—in relation to this long-standing breach. He asks about the legal advice. He heard my comments on the legal advice. We were not involved. This is not our legal context. He asks about publishing the Attorney General’s legal advice. That might have been appropriate if we were involved—I do not think it is—but we are not involved, so there is no such advice to publish.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s calls to move this to a negotiated solution, and his focus on UK defence and security. He is right that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. However, history also teaches us, on regime change, that interventions aimed at regime change in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have produced prolonged instability, not just in the region but far wider. What concrete lessons does he believe can be learned from this recent history in shaping Iran policy today?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he will forgive me. I am not going to enter into a history lesson from the Dispatch Box, except to remind him that on Sunday I achieved 25 years as an elected parliamentarian. During the course of that period, there have, of course, been debates about regime change. I also remind him that the US has been clear that its intention is to target the nuclear threat. We should keep that in mind.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary now concede that the international community’s unwillingness to take robust action through things like the snapback mechanism and the JCPOA is part of the reason that Israel felt the need to take the initial strikes and America to do likewise? I agree that diplomatic means will ultimately be the only long-term resolution, but that means not just asking nicely for Iran to put its nuclear weapons away, but enforcing that and ensuring it does so through such mechanisms. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that if we are not going to be involved in military action—I understand why we might not want to do that—we will ensure that robust action is taken, and that it is underpinned by measures that will force Iran to do the right thing, rather than just hoping that it will do the right thing?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—I know he knows how difficult it is to deal with Iran. He will remember that under the JCPOA, Iran was allowed to enrich to 3.67%; today, it is at 60%. The question is, how could that possibly be for civilian use? I challenged the Iranian Foreign Minister on that on Friday. We have had seven rounds of negotiations with the Iranians, which began under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government; he was Foreign Secretary for a period of that. Iran has obfuscated and deceived—the time now is to get real.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that while we all want to see urgent de-escalation, the escalating conflict in Iran will not take focus from the UK’s efforts to end the devastating war in Gaza, help the Palestinian people, free the hostages and lift restrictions on humanitarian and medical aid?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. The loss of life over the past few days—hundreds of people who lost their lives queuing for food—is appalling and should offend us all. Of course, when I spoke to Israel’s Foreign Minister yesterday, I reminded him once again of my deep concerns over the new system that Israel has put in place to deliver aid and of our belief that that system cannot and will not work, and that we need to return to a much better provision.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has said that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Does he therefore support the recent targeted strikes by the United States and Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities: yes or no? If not, can he explain how exactly that inaction would have curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
Mr Lammy
I am afraid I am not able to give an assessment of the effectiveness of that action at this stage, and neither is the United States. The hon. Lady may think that that is a binary question, but I do not believe it is. What the UK is engaged in is diplomacy, and we are working, of course, with our closest ally, the United States.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s condemnation of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but we need to match that condemnation with accountability. Here in the UK, Jewish communities in particular are deeply concerned about what lies ahead. Last week, the Iranian ambassador acknowledged before the Foreign Affairs Committee that MI5 had identified 22 threats on British soil that had been organised by the Iranian regime. What is the Foreign Secretary’s message to Jewish communities, who are in a state of high alert at the moment, wondering what will happen?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right that the Iranian regime is the world’s worst sponsor of state terrorism and state threats. We have three individuals who were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 moving through our judicial system. I want to reassure those in the Jewish community in our country that we take those threats very seriously, and I and the Home Secretary will do all we can to keep them, their buildings, their institutions and their families safe.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As usual, I agree with much of what the Foreign Secretary has to say, but I have to ask him this: how many times must a terrorist-funding, fanatical regime threaten to wipe another country from the face of the earth before a Government advised by Lord Hermer of Chagos acknowledge that military action to delay and degrade its nuclear weapons programme is both ethically and legally justifiable?
Mr Lammy
I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, that there is a convention in our country about the very important role that Attorneys General play in our Government. They are able to give the Government advice when asked for it; that happens under all Governments. I do not really recognise the caricature that I have heard or some of the reports. I want to make it crystal clear that we were not involved in this action and therefore some of what is being said is wholly beyond the pale.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Many constituents contacted me over the weekend, fearful of the fallout from US intervention in Iran. They know, and we know, that wars do not make the world a safer place, but make it much more dangerous. Their concerns are not unwarranted. In 2002, Netanyahu offered a guarantee that regime change in Iraq would bring “enormous positive reverberations” to the region. We now know that there was no imminent threat and no evidence of weapons. The scale of the disaster, not just in Iraq but across the region, was so profound that the Chilcot inquiry insisted that any future military intervention must be met with rigorous scrutiny. Does the Foreign Secretary accept the need for such scrutiny, and will he reassure the House again that we will not enter an endless war fuelled by reckless provocateurs?
Mr Lammy
I was in the House during the period in which Chilcot was doing his work, and I reassure my hon. Friend that our Government—and, I hope, all future UK Governments—have learned from its findings.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that Britain was not involved in the strikes on Iran. Will he also confirm whether the US Administration sought permission to use Diego Garcia as the launch point for the strikes? If permission was sought and denied, on what basis did the Prime Minister deny permission? If it was not sought, what does it say about the UK-US relationship that America would rather fly around the world from Missouri than launch from Diego Garcia?
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his measured approach to this crisis. In past rounds of violence, Iran has often leaned on its proxies to conduct retaliation. They include the Houthis of Yemen, who until recently had been attacking UK and international shipping in the Red sea. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to protect UK shipping in that area and to keep safe the trade routes that are so vital for our country?
Mr Lammy
Iran’s proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas, have been considerably degraded over this period. The Houthis have been held back but are still active in the Red sea. We will do all we can, working with partners, to protect our shipping routes. We have been crystal clear to the Iranian regime about the strait of Hormuz in particular.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Foreign Affairs Committee met the Iranian ambassador twice last week, and he claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme was legal and purely civil, and he said that they want to negotiate. Can the Foreign Secretary say, on the basis of the numerous meetings with the Iranian Foreign Minister that he has reported, whether he gained any impression of Iran’s willingness either to dismantle its nuclear programme or to negotiate?
Mr Lammy
That is the central question. What I have found is inflexibility, as well as a failure to face the seriousness with which the international community are looking at this question and to accept both that we have moved on from the joint comprehensive plan of action, which the Iranians pulled out of back in 2019, and that the focus now is on zero enrichment. Maybe they can have a civil nuclear capability, but it would have to be heavily monitored and would need some sort of international regime in locus with it. They have to face that seriousness now at this point.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. He said that the whole House will have in their thoughts the many civilians impacted by this fighting. I have in my thoughts the many protesters who took to the streets after the brutal and tragic killing of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. We saw protesters come forward and stand up against the brutal regime, and we saw people being mutilated. The last 20 years of intervention have shown that war and wider escalation will not help these people; it will not help the ordinary Iranians who are suffering under this regime. I have received many emails from my constituents, one of which said:
“The priority should be to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict, not supply weapons to either side of the conflict, and further, to support the facilitation of aid to civilians impacted by the war”.
Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that the UK will not act immediately to follow any military action and that we will urge the US and Israel to de-escalate and avoid targeting innocent civilians?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Mahsa Amini—a young woman who was imprisoned in Iran because of her appearance and then killed in police custody. Some 20,000 people, many of them protesters, were thrown into jail as a result, and 500 lost their lives—effectively murdered. That is the regime we are talking about, and my hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House of that. On diplomacy, I refer her to the statements I have previously made about our position on it.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
A lot of people watching and worrying over the weekend will have seen many of the hallmarks of Iraq. Despite that, the Foreign Secretary cannot tell us whether or not he believes that the strikes were the right thing to do, or whether or not he believes that the strikes were legal, and he has failed to outline today whether this House would be given a vote on any potential military action in this conflict. Is he purposely treating the public as fools?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman may just have got a soundbite, but I am afraid that I am not going to take any lectures from him on the nuclear question. He has a very sorry record on that serious matter. We have been very clear that diplomacy is the way and that de-escalation is our position. That is what a Government pursue if they are serious about foreign policy, and I would recommend our approach to him.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I join the Foreign Secretary in thanking our brave service personnel from RAF Brize Norton for repatriating British citizens from Tel Aviv. In this Armed Forces Week, we are all grateful for their courage and sacrifice.
On Iran, let us be clear about the regime: it has killed thousands upon thousands; upheld the brutal suppression of democracy, as well as the rights of women and of LGBT+ people; and demonstrated a consistent intent to sponsor terrorism and act through proxies with violence to destabilise the region. But all military action must go through the process of international law, and its execution must be based on a plan and intent to return to democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do what we can to support de-escalation as soon as possible?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his service in the RAF, and I am sure that he is thinking about his former colleagues at RAF Akrotiri and across our two sovereign bases in the area, and in particular about our bilateral defence partnerships with so many countries in the region. I am pleased to make it crystal clear that the path through this is a diplomatic one: it is for Iran to return to negotiation and to recognise the power of the global community being absolutely clear that it cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is good news that, reportedly, the Home Secretary has finally decided to proscribe the treacherous terrorist group Palestine Action. Given that she has done that at great speed after the recent attack, and given that the IRGC has conducted or attempted attacks on this country multiple times, will the Foreign Secretary use his powers to persuade the Home Secretary to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The proscription question is always one for the Home Secretary. In relation to the decision that she has made today, it is important to stress that the process has involved all the relevant agencies and their assessment of the activities. I have to say that the attacking of RAF bases is disgraceful and totally unacceptable, and the force of the law must bear down on that. The Home Secretary keeps proscription under review, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised a long-standing issue.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement and acknowledge, as many constituents have this week, the intense diplomatic efforts of his teams in ever-changing and ever-challenging times. But given the intolerable situation in Gaza, my constituents will want to be reassured that we will not let up on pressing in every way we can for more aid to get through and for an immediate ceasefire. I know that the Foreign Secretary said that last week and in the statement, but will he please underline it again?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This morning I sat in my office with Eli Sharabi, who managed to get out of a Hamas cell but lost many family members during that journey. He talked about the starvation he experienced—he went down to 44 kg, having been 70 kg when he went in. It was humbling to hear his story and to be reminded that the humanitarian catastrophe affected everyone in Gaza, but he did say that those from Hamas who were holding him ate plentifully while they watched him and others with him starve.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Given that there is a consensus, I think, across the whole House that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, it seems that there is a lack of willingness to recognise that negotiations, after many years, have patently failed to yield results. Will the Foreign Secretary join Reform and me in thanking the United States and Israel for degrading the Iranian nuclear weapons programme?
Mr Lammy
I had two conversations with Secretary of State Rubio yesterday, and I hope that he would say that we have established a good working relationship over the period, and the hon. Gentleman will know that I have a longer-standing relationship with Vice President Vance. To be clear, the United States’ position is that we are at war with Iran’s nuclear programme. This was a targeted attack. It is important to understand the efforts to degrade, but we have not yet had that assessment as to their effectiveness.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Iraq showed the grave dangers of following a right-wing US President into an illegal war for regime change. The consequences were hundreds of thousands of dead, mass destruction, mass devastation, regional chaos and wasted resources. Many fear that the same thing is happening now, so will the Foreign Secretary confirm that any such war on Iran for regime change would be illegal under international law? Will he also confirm that he would oppose any UK involvement in any such intervention or any such war?
Mr Lammy
I am confident, through my engagement with the United States and the discussions that I have had, including in the White House last week, that this is not about regime change. I should remind my hon. Friend that the Israelis too have been clear that they are not attacking the civilian leadership in Iran.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It appears that the House agrees with the Government’s objective that Iran should never have nuclear weapons, but the Government are prepared to will the ends but not the means. This begs the question: who is really running the Government? Why did Lord Hermer’s opinion on the legality of UK involvement in military action become public last week? Was it leaked? Was it briefed? Does this not demonstrate that the Government are paralysed and divided on this question instead of leading from the front?
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I commend the Foreign Secretary for urging calm and restraint at this troubling time. I know that he has been engaging with our European counterparts—notably with France and Germany as the E3—but as the positions of the US and Israel on Iran harden, does he agree that this is the moment when our relationship with Europe as a collective force for diplomacy and peace will be crucial?
Mr Lammy
It was important for the so-called E3—the United Kingdom, alongside Germany and France—working with the EU’s high representative, to make clear our concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions to the Iranian Foreign Minister and to urge him to come back to diplomacy. All of us were on the phone to him again after the action. Of course there is an important role for Europe, particularly as the custodians of the JCPOA, and because we have a decision to make about whether we will in fact snap back and impose a heavy set of sanctions on Iran if it fails to comply.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Last week and today, the Foreign Secretary said the Government’s first priority is the welfare of British nationals, and I welcome that, but my constituent who was caught in Iran with her baby unfortunately received no support from the Foreign Office and had to flee with officials at the port and to evacuate to Oman. That was not a secure route and another ferry was bombed along the way. Thankfully, she and her baby are now safe but are still making their way back to the UK without their luggage or any provisions for the baby. Can the Foreign Secretary outline what steps are being taken to ensure that British nationals like my constituent can be repatriated swiftly and safely if they so wish?
Mr Lammy
I am very sorry to hear about the position of the hon. Member’s constituent and her baby. It must have been immensely stressful for them to make their way out of Iran in that way. She will know that we have been advising against travel to Iran since 2019. We are able to offer support on the border with Azerbaijan as best we can, but she will also know that the airspace is not open in Iran. If she gets in touch with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), of course we can look at this to see what learnings there may be.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I would first like to associate myself with the condolences to all those who have lost loved ones. We are increasingly seeing foreign leaders not only flout international law but ignore our international rules-based system, which was hard-won after the second world war. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that we can get this back on track?
Mr Lammy
It was very appropriate to meet the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva, which in so many ways is the home, under the United Nations umbrella, of the multilateral system and the rules-based order. We were with him as the E3 and the EU to reinforce messages that we share with the United States and to try to broker a diplomatic solution, and we will keep trying.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This morning, the Foreign Secretary was repeatedly asked whether he considered the US’s bombing of Iran to be legal. Although I am sure everyone in this House recognises the brutality of the Iranian regime, his obfuscation in reply was clear, as is the refusal to say whether Britain would get involved in any capacity if the US falls deeper into a conflict with Iran. Can we have a clear answer from the Foreign Secretary now to that question, and will he clearly state that de-escalation must mean no UK involvement?
Mr Lammy
We have UK nationals in the region. We have UK bases in the region, and force protection is at its highest level. We have several thousand troops in the region. Of course their welfare is our priority. Of course we have moved assets in a precautionary way into the area, and of course we will work alongside our allies to protect them and to protect our people. I can give the hon. Member that assurance wholeheartedly.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
We all share the Foreign Secretary’s concern about getting back to considering how we end the horrors we see in Gaza and about getting clarity on the dangerous risks that Iran presents, but that means asking some difficult questions about how we get the negotiations going. We have seen today that the Israeli forces have deliberately targeted the Evin prison in Tehran. It was the prison in which Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was held. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with the Israeli Government about whether they are now moving to target non-military installations? What does he think that would mean for the ability to restart negotiations?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday. I spoke to him briefly again this morning, and he reassured me that the military targets and the nuclear facility remain their objective and their focus at this time.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Away from the headlines, as the Foreign Secretary said, hundreds of Gazans have been losing their lives. Let us be clear about what is happening. As tens of thousands of people walk miles daily to beg for food from American mercenaries, they are being shot at random in the street. I think we in this House have moved beyond asking the Foreign Secretary actually to lift a finger and beyond mouthing the words do anything about this, but I have a wider question. Does he envisage the UK playing any part in some sort of consequence in the future for these outright murders?
Mr Lammy
I know the right hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling on these issues and acknowledge the consistency with which he has pressed them from the Back Benches. I reassure him that in the White House last week we did not just discuss the situation in Israel and Iran; I also discussed the situation in Gaza, and our discussion is about the chances of a ceasefire. The prospects for that ceasefire are currently with Hamas, deep in their system and in their tunnels, but I remain hopeful that we will get a breakthrough in the coming days and weeks and that the suffering that we are seeing will be alleviated.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am aiming for 5 o’clock, so if we can speed up questions and answers, that would be very helpful. For a good example of that, I call Louise Jones.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
When there was US offensive action against Iran five years ago, we saw proxy action taken against UK and US personnel deployed in the middle east, where we sadly lost Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon. I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to give me details, but can he assure me that everything is being done to make sure there is adequate force protection for those who are still deployed on behalf of this country?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question and to be able to give that reassurance about our highest levels of force protection for all our wonderful personnel, many of whom I have met, who are in the region.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and also for emphasising the importance of restraint and de-escalation at this perilous moment. What steps is he taking to try to align and co-ordinate his diplomatic efforts with those of our European and G7 allies, in the hope of presenting a united diplomatic front?
Mr Lammy
I have of course spoken to our G7 allies over the past two weeks. I have spoken to our partners in the region, in the Levant as well as in the Gulf particularly, and I will continue to do all I can. Obviously, NATO in the coming days will be another forum in which we can reach a common path towards diplomacy.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for the largest Jewish school in Europe, may I thank the Foreign Secretary for his earlier assurances on safeguarding the community in this country? May I also commend the way in which he has diligently pursued a negotiated outcome to this destabilised situation? He knows that it used to be said that the Israeli Prime Minister jumped to the tune of America. Now that it seems to be the other way round, what action will he take against Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically, in order to stop the destabilisation of the middle east?
Mr Lammy
We do have disagreements with the Government of Israel, and my hon. Friend knows that a few weeks ago we sanctioned two members of that Government. But I remain, and the Government remain, a friend of Israel, able to work at many different levels. We recognise the contribution that has been made to the degrading of proxies working on behalf of Iran that contribute to Iran being the worst actor on state threats globally.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
If Iran chooses to close the straits of Hormuz, which the Iranian Parliament has now voted to do, what contingency options has the Foreign Secretary worked up to protect UK national interests?
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Member that these issues are of course under consideration in the Government. All contingencies are in place, and we are in discussion with our allies about that, but it would be wrong for me to go into operational detail.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments made across the House about the dire and despicable nature of the Iranian regime? That said, last week the Foreign Secretary told the House that attacks on Iran were not in our national interest. So does he believe that the strikes led by Trump and Netanyahu—two hard-right authoritarians with no love for a rules-based order—have made Britain or the world any safer? Or does he agree with me that, for much of the world watching, the message is chillingly clear? In a global order where rules mean little and might makes right, deterrence not diplomacy is now the only defence; and that, as he must acknowledge, makes global security more precarious than ever.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I recall that he also recognises the problems of that nuclear threat and nuclear proliferation. An assessment has not yet been made of the effectiveness of that military action, but he will have heard my remarks in relation to diplomacy. That is the way now, and it will be the way that we get beyond this current crisis.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
We have now been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America’s actions or whether he regards them as legal, and nowhere in his statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. Will the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity to tell us whether he believes that America’s unilateral action was compliant with international law?
Mr Lammy
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I qualified and was called to the Bar in 1995 and have not practised for the past 25 years. It is not for me to comment on the United States and legality. I refer him to article 51 and article 2 of the UN charter, and he can seek his own advice.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is right to focus on de-escalation and diplomacy. However, we know that the joint comprehensive plan of action did not curtail Iran’s enrichment of uranium, so what lesson will he learn as he rebuilds the architecture for diplomacy to ensure that Iran cannot rebuild its nuclear-enriched uranium?
Mr Lammy
With Iran enriching at 60% and the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that Iran has no credible civilian justification for that high enrichment level, my hon. Friend is quite right. Therefore, the debate has moved on, and it has moved on to zero enrichment.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the House that if the United States needs to take further action to degrade and destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities and requests to use Diego Garcia, Cyprus or any other British military facility, we will make sure that that is made available?
Mr Lammy
From my discussions with the United States and with Secretary of State Rubio, that is not their intention; the right hon. Gentleman will have seen that from the thrust of the press conference held in the United States yesterday. He will also know that they are assessing now what has happened and they are hoping that it has been a targeted response and a single response. That is the thrust of what we are being told by the United States at this time.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I understand the priority to evacuate UK citizens from Israel, but advice to our constituents in Qatar to shelter in place until further notice is hardly comforting. May I press the Foreign Secretary to outline what more detail will be provided for UK citizens in the wider region and whether there is a specific threat against them?
Mr Lammy
The message I gave earlier at the Dispatch Box is in the context of a fast-moving situation and advice that was given by the US shortly before I stood up. Of course we keep our advice updated, and we are on high alert right across the region.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Is it UK Government policy to pursue regime change in Iran—yes or no?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, from talking to Secretary of State Rubio, Vice-President Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff, that is not the objective of the United States, and of course it is not our belief that it is for us to change the regime of any country. That must be for the people themselves.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is absolutely right to call for de-escalation at this extremely dangerous time; however, the Foreign Secretary will know that the United States’ attack on Iran has raised serious questions about violation of international law, and Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its occupation and settlements in the west bank are of course also illegal under international law. So can the Foreign Secretary tell me if the Government still profess to believe in the international rules-based order, or are we now admitting that we are content to support countries that act outside it?
Mr Lammy
I refer my hon. Friend to what I have said in the Chamber this afternoon. Of course we believe in the rules-based order and international law. That was precisely why I was in Geneva on Friday for seven hours attempting to get Iran to comply and get back around the negotiating table.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On the radio this morning, the Foreign Secretary told us of his adherence to and support for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and used that as an argument for the bombardment of Iran. Has he said anything to Israel about its illegal holding of nuclear weapons, its possession of a delivery system and the obvious danger to anybody of having a nuclear-armed neighbour who may well use those weapons? What has he said to the Government of Israel about their nuclear weapons?
Mr Lammy
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has been campaigning on these issues over many years, and has taken strong positions on nuclear proliferation. I do not want to go back to the days of Mordechai Vanunu, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Israel is not threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons—it is Iran that we must stop at this time.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend believe that the attacks on Iran are beneficial to this country or will they create more instability in the middle east and beyond? As an upholder of the rules-based international order, which he says that we still support, is there a cost to the UK if the actions of our allies—the United States and Israel—are judged to be contrary to international law?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is learned in these matters and will have strong views. We are seeking de-escalation and pursuing diplomacy, and we are doing that according to the rules-based order and our belief in the international architecture that was set up on the backs of men and women who lost their lives and gave so much in the second world war.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has referred a number of times to the diplomatic off-ramp. Will he confirm to the House that the diplomatic off-ramp—the request of the United Kingdom to Iran—is that the regime changes its stance and finally recognises the right of our ally, Israel, to exist?
Mr Lammy
I can. Of course the regime should recognise the right of Israel to exist, and it should work with the United States and the E3, particularly, to ensure that it is putting whatever has been developed beyond use.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Over the past decades, Iran and its terrorist proxies have effectively colonised five middle eastern countries and used them as launching pads for attacks against Israel. Iran has been goading and indeed preparing for a conflict with Israel for decades, including the genocidal intent behind its nuclear weapons development. How will the UK support our many allies in the region, including Arab countries as well as Israel, who are facing similar threats from the Iranian regime?
Mr Lammy
I remind my hon. Friend that we have the strongest of bilateral defence relationships with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and Lebanon at this time, and they can rely on us.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I have to push the Foreign Secretary on this point: a lot of hon. Members have asked him specifically whether he supports the attack conducted by the United States, but he has refused to answer that question. Is that because he realises, like many of the British public, that it was an illegal attack on Iran?
Mr Lammy
As I said on the radio this morning and I will say again now, I will continue to work with our closest ally to ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s calls for a durable diplomatic solution: no one benefits from the continuation of this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure peace and prevent war in the region, particularly guaranteeing that the strait of Hormuz remains safe for our liquefied natural gas and oil tankers? Securing that trade route is essential for global stability and economic security, including Iran’s.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, because many members of the public beyond this Chamber will be worried about the risk of inflation and of an oil shock particularly. They will want to be reassured that the Government are doing everything they can to be clear to Iran that it cannot blockade or mine the strait of Hormuz—it must not do that. We will of course act with allies to prevent such an occurrence.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It seems that we have been going around in circles for an hour and a quarter. In answering questions, the Foreign Secretary has rightly pointed out that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran reaching 60% enriched uranium. Likewise, he has rightly acknowledged that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran spreading and sponsoring terrorism around the region, yet each time he has concluded with a hope that greater rounds of diplomacy will solve this. Hope is not a strategy. At what point will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there probably can be no diplomacy with a regime that is so brutal to its own people and just will not listen?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is a bright man. He knows that once a country has acquired the means to enrich to 60%, the expertise exists, and only a diplomatic solution can create the framework to eradicate and control that expertise. That is why, in the end, this can be dealt with only diplomatically. It is also why President Trump is urging Iran to return to the negotiating table.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
As well as the Iranian regime’s threat to Israel, it has supported Assad to kill half a million people in Syria, including Palestinians, and it supplies Putin with the drones he is using to massacre people in Ukraine. We must also remember that the Iranian regime persecutes its own people, including human rights activists. Just as Ministers have, I am pleased to say, engaged with Syrian activists in the UK to hear their views on the future of their country, can I ask Ministers and the Foreign Secretary to assure me that they will engage with human rights activists and democracy activists here in Britain to help to guide their approach?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s articulacy is spot on. I can give him that undertaking, between myself and the Minister for the Middle East.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
We talk weekly in this place about Russia’s illegal bombing of Ukraine. Russia may not be a close ally like the US, but presumably if international law applies to that, the US bombing of Iran would likewise be illegal under international law. If not, can the Foreign Secretary explain why international law would apply differently to the US? Where does that leave us if this conflict escalates in the region?
Mr Lammy
I say gently to the hon. Lady that one should always be wary of moral equivalence. Russia invaded a sovereign country and, for the last years, has been firing rockets into that country, aided by Iran. We will continue to stand up to Putin’s abysmal aggression, and of course he should be held to account.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his continued clarity that the UK has not been involved in this military action in the middle east. I also thank him and his team for all their diplomatic efforts on de-escalation. I agree with what he said about the horrific situation in Gaza, where in the last week more than 100 Palestinians have been killed while starving and waiting for aid. He says that he has pressed the US and Israel on this issue in the last week. Is he continuing to discuss it and to press for action together with France and Canada? Given his remarks about UK citizens in Qatar, what can he say about conversations with the Gulf and Jordan on protecting our citizens, assets and others there, should that be needed?
Mr Lammy
I have liaised with Jordan and with Gulf partners, and I will be speaking to the UAE later on today. We will work with them to keep them safe. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record our deep concerns about those who have lost their lives in Gaza over the last few days.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary and his Department for the work they are doing to protect British citizens here and abroad. What does he think needs to happen for Iran to abandon its ambitions to build and deploy a nuclear weapon?
Mr Lammy
Iran has to recognise that it has lost its air defences, and it is my belief that its friends in Russia and China will not be rushing to its aid. It has to recognise that its proxies are degraded, and that the international community is firm that it cannot have a nuclear weapon and it has now got to come back to the negotiating table. We have to put in place a framework that deals with the stockpiles, with the centrifuges, with enrichment to 60%, and with the problem of ballistic missiles.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his level-headed approach in calling for de-escalation. He has spoken about the threat of further escalation with the closure of the strait of Hormuz, through which—as he knows—a large proportion of the world’s oil supply flows. Can he say more about how he will protect UK householders and businesses from a potential rise in oil prices?
Mr Lammy
It is important that we de-escalate at this time and that diplomacy prevails, and of course it is important that we work with our allies for every contingency. I am not in the business of talking up fears of an oil price shock; I am working to reassure the British people that we are doing all we can to see that that eventuality does not come to pass.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
This House has agreed that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, but former Russian premier Dmitry Medvedev has said that a number of countries will now be considering supplying nuclear warheads to Iran. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of that statement, and what are the Government doing to prevent it?
Mr Lammy
It would be wrong for me to go into detail about that, but of course it has come to my attention. I also put on record my grave concerns about the reports that Iran’s Parliament is preparing to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which would further isolate Iran.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Further escalation in the middle east could have devastating consequences, not only for the region but for global stability. Given the provocative and inflammatory rhetoric from President Trump and the risk of unpredictable US action further destabilising the situation, can the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the Government are taking to work with international partners to de-escalate tensions and protect UK interests? Can he also give a definitive answer to the question of UK involvement?
Mr Lammy
We were not involved. Over the weekend, I spoke to my Cypriot and Lebanese counterparts, and in the days before that, I spoke to all counterparts in the Gulf. Of course we are working to de-escalate at this time.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?
Mr Lammy
I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 2.13 of the ministerial code.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
With his 25 years of parliamentary service, the Foreign Secretary will no doubt remember when Tony Blair told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a grave threat to international security. Of course, we then followed America into an illegal war in the middle east, and if the Prime Minister were to go down that same road, he would be wrong too. Is it not overdue that the Government follow an independent and, as Robin Cook memorably said, ethical foreign policy—one created here and not in Washington DC?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend allows me to put on record what a privilege it has been to serve and work as Foreign Secretary alongside a Prime Minister of such tremendous principle and legal learning, who entirely understands his obligations and what good government looks like, and is absolutely steadfast in his belief in the international rules-based order.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the gravity with which he is treating this important topic. One week ago, he told me that he had “huge confidence” in our ability to defend our middle eastern assets from Iranian strikes, but within two days, two strategic assets were vandalised by a couple of civilians on e-scooters at RAF Brize Norton. Does he recognise that the UK must not follow Trump into Netanyahu’s war with Iran, when force protection is inadequately resourced at home?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service in the RAF. I refer him to the statement that the Armed Forces Minister will make to the House shortly about the security of our sovereign bases.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Just a week ago, we were here calling for de-escalation because there were so many civilian deaths, but in the past week we have seen an escalation and so many more civilian deaths in Israel, Gaza and Iran. We know that it is much easier to get into a conflict than to conclude it. If the justification for military action is now a nuclear weapons programme and being a threat to neighbours, how many other nations fit that category? Is North Korea not another example, but with an even more advanced nuclear weapons programme? Where are we in terms of justification and article 51 of the UN charter?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of why it would be a travesty for Iran to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty and why we must work to ensure that it does not become a North Korea. It must never have a nuclear weapons programme, and we will do everything to stop that happening.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The family of my constituent, Katie Solomon, have been in touch to share their fears about her as she shelters from Iranian attacks in Israel. My constituent Mehdi Moslehi has told me about how his life in the UK started as a refugee from the Iranian regime. Can the Foreign Secretary tell my constituents and the House why, given Iran’s record, he is finding it so difficult to follow the Prime Minister in welcoming the actions of our allies in seeking to reduce the risks posed by the Iranian nuclear programme?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman will recall that in my Tottenham constituency, I represent the Stamford Hill area of London, which is the home of many in our orthodox Jewish community, many of whom are in Israel as we speak, sheltering in their bunkers. The picture he paints is one that I recognise, and that is why I will do everything I can to work with them and protect them.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Dozens of people from my Hendon constituency have been stranded in Israel and Iran. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his hard work on this issue, and it is good news that the first flight has already occurred. Can he say more about the timeframes for potential future flights and what is being done to support those looking to leave Israel over land borders or by sea?
Mr Lammy
I updated the House about our rapid response teams who are working in Israel and at its borders for those who can journey to the land borders with Jordan and Egypt to leave. We have a flight in the air as we speak. I expect that there will be further fights in the coming days, but it depends on airspace and on how those days look.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement in which he says that he has been crystal clear with the regime in Tehran. I hope he has been a lot clearer with them than he has been with the House today, but I will give it one more go, because I genuinely do not understand why he cannot answer this question. Does His Majesty’s Government support or oppose the US military action against Iran at the weekend?
Mr Lammy
His Majesty’s Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I did last week in Washington DC.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the energy he has invested in de-escalation, because it is the only moral route out of this conflict. I thank him also for reassuring us that UK forces are not involved and that we have not given up on the plight facing ordinary Gazans. There are 90 million people in Iran, just under 10 million of whom are in Tehran. There are reports of many of them trying to leave the country, and that will be made worse by the reports and speculation on regime change. There are also reports that Turkey and Pakistan might be closing their borders to refugees. Is he keeping a watchful eye on that, and has he discussed it with our international partners?
Mr Lammy
I spoke to our ambassadors and teams across the region this morning, because I recognise that this is a worrying and stressful time in all those areas. That is why my central message and task is to de-escalate. We need more light and less heat.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
If I heard the Foreign Secretary correctly, he said that the UK would act if Iran sought to block the strait of Hormuz. Did he mean “act militarily”? In what other conditions would he consider military action, and what would he say if the Americans turned to this Government and asked them for support in any military adventure to do with this conflict?
Mr Lammy
It would be quite wrong for me to go into eventualities and operational matters at this Dispatch Box at this time, but the hon. Gentleman should be reassured that all contingency arrangements are in place to keep our people safe and to work with our allies to keep the region safe.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The most in-depth study ever conducted of the casualties of the so-called war on terror was carried out by Brown University in America, which found that, directly or indirectly, more than 4.5 million people lost their lives partly because of what was voted for in this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way in which this conflict can be resolved is through diplomacy, and can he assure the House that he will not follow the last Labour Government and the mantra of the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair when it comes to America’s bombing a middle eastern country—“with you, whatever” —and lead this country and the world into the abyss?
Mr Lammy
I can state again, as I have stated throughout the afternoon, that diplomacy is the way, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that our Government, and successive Governments, have learned from the Chilcot inquiry.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Why should the House of Commons, and those in the country that we represent, not be entitled to know whether their Government support or regret the American action? Does not equivocation on that issue bring succour to those who we say must be robbed, quite properly, of their nuclear potential?
Mr Lammy
I think that the people of Britain are entitled to know that we were not involved in this action, and that we work for diplomacy and de-escalation. That is why I was sitting in the White House last week, it is why I was in Geneva on Friday, and it is why I was at a Cobra meeting and making a round of calls to allies and partners to de-escalate at this time yesterday.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and had to refuel three times, in a highly dangerous operation, because of the deal that the Government did with the Mauritians, who would then tell the Chinese, who would then tell the Iranians?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady has to get off social media, and she has to get some help. She is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Iranian regime has long been a threat to peace, democracy and human rights, and the unilateral, illegal and dangerously provocative Israeli and, now, American attacks have made a tense situation extremely perilous and are completely outside international law. It is therefore deeply concerning to hear the Foreign Secretary echo the talking points of Netanyahu and Trump instead of standing up for those principles, clearly condemning the illegality of these bombings, and unequivocally ruling out the UK’s being dragged into any military action to support such illegal action. Why will he not do so?
Mr Lammy
I am focused on Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon, I am focused on the UK’s solemn obligation to stop that happening, and I am focused on the diplomacy that is required to bring that about.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I have often spoken in this Chamber about the Iranian regime and the horrific human rights abuses that take place under the IRGC. I have nothing but admiration for the steps taken to destroy Iranian nuclear armaments by our American and Israeli allies—steps that we must support. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the US and Israel as they do what needs to be done? We must send a message to Iran that retaliation in any form will not be acceptable, and that it would face the might of the best armed forces in the world—the British armed forces.
Mr Lammy
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that of course we stand with our allies in the United States and Israel in facing down the repeated threats from Iran. The threat to Israel is existential, and the Iranians are destabilising the neighbourhood. Of course we will stand up to them.
UK Modern Industrial Strategy
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With permission, I will make a statement on how this Government are backing British business and British workers through the launch of the UK’s modern industrial strategy. At the outset, I wish to thank Dame Clare Barclay, all members of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and my officials for their outstanding work in preparing for the launch of the strategy today.
In an uncertain world, stability, clarity and consistency are needed more than ever. The challenges we face require nothing less than a Government who are on the pitch and clearing the way for private enterprise, and doing so in the best interests of working people. That is what this pro-business, pro-worker Government are going to deliver.
Today I launch a strategy to make Britain the best place in the world to start and grow a business, based on a fundamentally new economic approach from what we have had in the past—a break from the declinism, the dither and the disinterest that defined the last Conservative Government. The strategy speaks to the strength and breadth of our economy, be it building strong industrial foundations, powering frontier technologies, or supporting our world-leading services sector to innovate and thrive. It brings together every bit of Government to drive investment, improving the total business environment by drawing on every Department’s expertise. It is a plan to rebuild Britain through new jobs, new industries and new investments; a plan to launch thousands of new careers in engineering, life sciences, professional services and more; and a plan in which Britain’s future is designed and built in Britain.
I accept that until this Government came to power, British business was treated to a merry-go-round of policy changes that was matched only by the shuffling of successive Business Secretaries. We are now providing the stability that is at such a premium across the world. Make UK has long called for
“a funded and joined-up long-term vision as a matter of urgency for stability and investment”—
I could not have put it better myself. From the moment we took office, we said that we would pursue a new economic approach in which industrial policy would be done with business, not to business, and we are fulfilling that commitment today. I place on record my thanks to the thousands of businesses that engaged in the process and designed the strategy with us. It is not a document that will be printed and then forgotten; we will put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the industrial strategy on a statutory footing to hardwire the changes for the long term.
This Government have brought stability, openness and a pro-growth agenda, but as I have told the House previously, working people must feel the benefits of economic growth. We must go further and faster if we want to achieve the kind of economic growth that the public should expect, see in their public services and feel in their pay packets. Business leaders have provided a wealth of testimony and evidence on the areas that they see as holding them back, and there are no surprises on the list. It starts with energy, because we have among the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world at present. They went up 50% in real terms under the previous Government. Second on the list is skills, because when we have vacancies at the same time as one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and net immigration is at 1 million, as it was when we took office, something has gone badly wrong. Thirdly, there is place, because too much of the country has been held back by crumbling infrastructure and a lack of investment due to the north-south divide—and that ends now. We will make the bold choices to ensure every region and every nation can play to their strengths. Finally, there is access to finance, because without access to capital we will always have a ceiling on ambition. Today, we have smashed through these barriers.
Let me take each of those four in turn, starting with energy. Today, we have announced that we will slash electricity costs by between 20% and 25% through a new British industrial competitiveness scheme. This will bring our prices more closely in line with those in Europe, and it will be a game changer. We will also put in place the reforms we need for businesses to get the much faster connections to the grid that they need. That means companies in sectors such as car making and chemicals will see their electricity costs cut. The scheme could benefit over 7,000 businesses with high electricity usage in industrial strategy foundational industries and high-growth manufacturing sectors, which collectively employ over 300,000 skilled workers.
We will also launch an expanded version of the supercharger scheme, so that some of our largest companies in electricity-intensive sectors—including investments of the future such as the new steelworks’ electric arc furnace at Port Talbot and the Agratas gigafactory in Somerset—will see their network charging exemptions rise from 60% to 90%, cutting their electricity bills and again making them more competitive than our European neighbours. Although the previous Government promised that to business, they again failed to deliver. I confirm that this will all be done without adding a penny to consumer bills or those of any other business.
Secondly, we are shaking up the skills system to prioritise digital, engineering and defence skills, so British workers can secure good, secure jobs in tomorrow’s economy. Our industrial strategy sectors are already on track to create 1.1 million new good, well-paying jobs with the help of this industrial strategy, and we want those opportunities to benefit all our constituents. That is why we are investing over £275 million in our engineering skills package and the skills mission fund to deliver training and new technical excellence colleges as part of our wider skills offer. Through our global talent visa reforms and the global talent taskforce, we are also ensuring that UK businesses can recruit the best of the best from here and abroad.
Thirdly, the issue of place—the economic geography of the UK—means a great deal to me and many of my colleagues, who listened to the grand plans to level up that turned into a few extra flowerpots and empty promises. I want to be clear that this strategy is unashamedly ambitious. It chooses to back places where there are clusters of high-growth sectors, and it will work with devolved Governments, Mayors and local leaders to boost that growth.
We are making it easier to get money to places and turn investment into spades in the ground and cranes in the sky through industrial strategy zones, which will bring together our existing network of freeports and investment zones. We will also, for the first time, include a new programme identifying investible sites where we will fast-track development, similar to the approach taken in France. However, our infrastructure must match our ambition, so we will strengthen connections between city regions and clusters through the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, the growth corridor across our northern city regions, the Edinburgh-Glasgow central belt and rail enhancements in Wales.
Finally, we will unlock billions of pounds in business finance, with the National Wealth Fund supporting our growth sectors, an expanded role for UK Export Finance and £4 billion growth capital for start-ups and scale-ups through a larger British Business Bank, addressing at scale the key stage that we know is the most challenging. This growth capital will catalyse £12 billion of private capital across the eight growth-driving sectors and deliver around £30 billion of additional gross value added to the UK economy.
These measures, alongside our transformative sector plans, are how we can realise the untapped potential in key parts of our economy. For instance, by 2035 we aim to double business investment in advanced manufacturing, increasing the volume of vehicles produced in the UK to 1.3 million, while creating the first European market for self-driving vehicles. We are turbocharging our clean energy mission with investment in offshore wind, small modular reactors, carbon capture, green hydrogen, gigafactories, ports and green steel. We will make our United Kingdom one of the top three places in the world for creating and scaling digital and technology business. That means training 1 million young people in tech skills and expanding our Al research resource by at least twentyfold by 2030. We will significantly increase business investment in our world-leading creative industries sector to £31 billion, cementing our position as one of the great creative exporters in the world. For our life sciences sector, our ambition is that the UK will be, by 2030, the leading life sciences economy in Europe, and, by 2035, the third most important life sciences economy globally, after the US and China.
At the same time, we plan to double business investment in professional and business services to £61 billion, ensuring the continued growth in a powerhouse industry that accounts for millions of jobs in the UK, the vast majority outside London. We have already announced the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war and will use this to transform the UK into a defence industrial superpower by 2035, leading Europe in defence exports and closing the gap with the US by half in venture capital investment in defence. For our financial services, the heart of business investment and stability, we will harness opportunities as markets digitise and adopt new technologies, and ensure the whole economy feels the benefits of increased investment.
The industrial strategy also ensures that places and sectors can take full advantage of the UK’s position as a global hub for trade. The UK has long been and will remain a champion of free trade, which is why, under this Government, we have delivered trade agreements with our biggest trading partner in the world, the biggest economy in the world and the fastest growing economy in the world, making the UK the best connected market in the world. Through this industrial strategy, we are reaffirming our commitment to free and fair resilient trade, while shielding businesses from supply chain disruption and market-distorting practices. We will leverage our relationships with Europe, the US, China, the Gulf and beyond, so that businesses can make the UK their base to connect with global markets. It will work hand-in-glove with the trade strategy, which my Department will publish later this week, to help British companies break into new markets, export more and grow more.
This is a watershed moment. For too long, Governments have been a source of problems for British business, not a path to solutions. The result, in parts of the country where I and many of us here grew up, was that we watched yards and factories close, along with the door to opportunity. There was a sense that we were losing the past, but we had no bridge to the future. That also ends now, because our plan for change is backing this country’s greatest assets and frontier industries to put more money into people’s pockets, raise living standards and unleash a decade of national renewal. I welcome Make UK’s comments that
“Today is one of the most important days for British industry in a generation.”
We are creating a prosperous, proud and outward-facing but self-reliant, independent and high-skilled nation; a country where opportunity, skills and wealth are spread fairly, and where every person and every business have the chance to flourish. That is what our modern industrial strategy will deliver. Our future, in our hands, built in Britain: that is what the strategy will achieve. I commend this statement to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Please be seated. The Secretary of State is very diligent, but could he let his officials know that if the opening statement is to go beyond 10 minutes, they should inform the Speaker’s Office? As the statement went a little bit longer, I will allow the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats to have an extra one minute each. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
It is always a good day when we can talk about our wonderful and innovative British businesses, but, sad to say, this strategy has taken the best part of 12 months to appear. That is how long British industry has had to wait for this cut and paste industrial strategy; 158 pages mostly copied and pasted from previous sector strategies and the science and technology framework, which do nothing to alleviate the pain and turmoil that Labour has already inflicted. In those 12 months, Labour has crashed the economy—[Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but unemployment has been up in every one of the nine months of this Government, with hiring and investment down. I understand that this document is printed on 40% recycled paper—very much like its content.
Yet there is no respite for businesses from the decisions that have been taken. The Secretary of State talks about restoring stability, and that may well be what was written for him, but he, like me, listens to businesses, so he cannot possibly believe that. The Government have hiked taxes by £40 billion when they promised not to, and gilt rates are higher today than after the mini-Budget; they fiddled the fiscal rules and are now running out of headroom, all while setting up state investment banks in a repeat of the previous Labour Government’s private finance initiative. Higher taxes, higher energy costs and more red tape on employment—the proposals set out in this document are simply insufficient at a time when businesses need far greater measures to defend them from the minefield that Labour has left out.
There are many elements of this strategy that we do welcome. I am pleased that the Government have continued the work the former Chancellor and I undertook on access to capital, and it is good to see an emphasis on trade and international co-operation, particularly with the document’s focus on Japan and Saudi Arabia. I am glad that the Government are implementing the O’Shaughnessy reforms and turning the NHS into a global platform health data research service.
It is encouraging to see the weight given to autonomous cars, although it is curious that there is no mention of the opportunity of driverless trains. I am disappointed that the life sciences and engineering biology receive relatively modest mentions. There is a minor mention of skills reform, but there is no mention of real deregulation to our labour market and a near absence of references to small businesses, which account for the majority of businesses and employment in this country.
The big miss, however, is on energy. We welcomed the Prime Minister’s epiphany this weekend when he announced he would slash green levies on a certain number of businesses. However, the industrial strategy still talks about accelerating to net zero at a time when British business needs the opposite. It is simply mad. Rather than the Business and Trade Secretary—sitting next to the Energy Secretary on the Front Bench—addressing the root causes of high energy costs, this Government seem intent on adding to the web of complexity of taxes, levies and subsidies. There is nothing in the strategy about reopening the North sea—the energy reserves that lie under our own secure feet. It even compounds the problem by imposing further self-harm through a carbon border adjustment mechanism—a tariff by another name—which will cost businesses and consumers in this country dear.
How can anyone outside this postcode running a business believe that Labour intends to cut the regulatory burden when it has set up new quangos at the rate of one every two weeks, including in the Business Secretary’s own Department? How can anyone outside Whitehall looking at the regulations take seriously the commitments in this document, when the Secretary of State’s own Department is guiding through the House 300 pages of trade union-written employment law, which will force employers to cut hiring and jobs?
I will conclude with a number of questions. If the Secretary of State cannot answer today, perhaps he would be so kind as to write with a reply. The small business strategy was promised for the spring, but the summer solstice is now behind us. Can he tell the millions of businesses when it is coming?
There are a number of live situations that the Secretary of State will be aware of, including the bioethanol plan in Saltend Chemicals Park in Hull, Syngenta moving its precision wheat breeding programme to France, and the Government equivocating over supporting the stake in the vital low Earth orbit satellite operator OneWeb. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is actions, not words, that count, and will he impress that on his Treasury colleagues?
Finally, the strategy does talk about reducing the number of regulators, which is wholly welcome, as we need a marked cull in the number of regulators and their scope and size. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing an annual statement showing the progress his Government are making on that, and will he start today by agreeing not to create any new ones?
Jonathan Reynolds
So fuelled by optimism am I today that even the shadow Secretary of State cannot bring me down. Having been in opposition for some time, I can say that, “This document is all rubbish and I welcome most of it,” is quite an exciting take on a response. The Conservative party has managed to oppose almost everything that the Government have done in their first year, including, in my Department, the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which the previous Government were planning to introduce had they remained in office, and the India trade deal, which they were negotiating but could not get across the line, so I welcome the small bits of positivity in his response.
Everyone across the House should support the strategy. It is based on things that will not be secrets to hon. Members who spend time with businesses on constituency Fridays and at weekends. They will be told about skills, energy, access to finance and how local areas should have the powers to address the needs in their local economies. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State would recognise, in good spirit, that many of the problems that need to be addressed grew under the Conservative Government. For example, the fact that energy bills became so uncompetitive was a result of actions and decisions of the Conservative Government. We are fixing that problem, in order to make a difference.
On skills, one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, while net immigration is at 1 million. That is not a policy success. It needed to be addressed. We needed to address, too, the failures on the funding of courses such as engineering. That was such an obvious need for our sectors. Finance is one of the longest-running problems; we are all familiar with it.
The shadow Secretary of State asked a number of questions, and I am more than happy to answer them. On small businesses, if he reads more of the detail when he has a bit more time, he will see that small and medium-sized enterprises play a vital role in the creative industries and defence sector plans. To anyone who asks, “What’s the message to businesses that are not in sectors covered by the industrial strategy?” I say that they will benefit from people having good jobs and high incomes. Whether they are in hospitality, retail or leisure, they will see a direct benefit from the strategy. The small business plan will come out in July, and it will deal with issues such as late payment, business support and access to the kinds of tools—rental auctions and so forth—that will make a difference on the high street.
The shadow Secretary of State attacked net zero. That is a mistake. Why would we turn our back on billions of pounds of investment and all the benefits it could bring? In particular, becoming a country that is not so reliant on volatile foreign gas prices is an obvious thing that we would not want to turn our back on. He seemed to announce a new Conservative position of opposing CBAMs, which deal with carbon leakage and create a level playing field. I am surprised by that, because the previous Conservative Government were strong advocates of them.
On the bioethanol industry, talks continue with the two plants most directly affected. Of course, they were in a challenging position before the US trade deal; the deal was not in itself the cause of that. They were losing money. If I intervene, I must have a route to profitability, and that is the basis of those conversations. We are committed to precision breeding. Businesses that moved to France would find a more restrictive environment there because of EU regulation, so I would not recommend that.
On OneWeb, there are some specific issues, about which I would be more than happy to talk to the shadow Secretary of State. On regulation, we have already taken decisive action, for example with a strategic steer to the Competition and Markets Authority, which has been warmly welcomed by businesspeople. They ask me for more of that, and that is exactly what we intend to bring forward.
Finally, let me say, because I know that this is so important to colleagues, that I am more than happy to offer a briefing to any Front-Bench spokesperson or group of colleagues across the House. There is so much in the strategy that will make a difference and so much detail worth sharing, and I would be more than happy to do so with colleagues. Let us all get behind the strategy and get behind British industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the biggest remaking of the relationship between the public and private sectors for a generation. The business community in this country will be stronger and better for the measures that he has announced today. Business will welcome in particular the huge investment in skills, access to research and development, and access to capital, but the game changer is the investment in energy that he has announced. Cutting industrial energy prices is a way to get rid of the albatross around the neck of British business. It is a big promise; can he assure the House that there is both the plan and the pound notes to deliver on it?
Jonathan Reynolds
I warmly welcome those words from the Chair of the Select Committee. I absolutely agree with him. There is so much in the strategy, but we were so uncompetitive on energy that whether action could be taken had become a test of credibility from business. The kinds of changes we are talking about—a reduction of £35 to £40 per megawatt-hour by exempting eligible businesses from payments for the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market—will make a real difference. We are talking about going from being the absolute outlier to, today, being cheaper than Italy and the Czech Republic and on a par with Germany. That is a game changer, and it has been welcomed. We will obviously have to consult; we can make the changes to the supercharger more quickly than we can introduce that support. Of course, we will have to set a threshold intensity test and make sure it goes to the sectors in most need of it, but we expect those to include the core foundational sectors as well as aerospace, automotive and all the areas where the competitive pressure is most acute. I am incredibly excited by that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long been champions of the industrial strategy. We are proud that the strategy we introduced in government set out the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank and the regional growth fund, and we strongly opposed the Conservative Government’s damaging decision to scrap our country’s industrial plan. We therefore welcome the re-establishment of the industrial strategy and the fact that it focuses on many of the sectors we prioritised in government, including life sciences, professional services and clean energy.
On energy, measures to bring down some of the highest industrial prices in the world will be welcome news for our manufacturers and energy-intensive firms, but we cannot forget that businesses across our entire economy struggle with high energy prices, not least our hospitality businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that small businesses across sectors have access to better energy deals? Will he look to bring forward the industrial competitiveness scheme from its current two-year horizon?
On skills, while today’s announcement comes with a welcome funding boost, it stops well short of the fundamental reform that we need, so will the Secretary of State accelerate the reform of apprenticeships and empower Skills England to act as a properly independent body with employers at its heart? One key omission from the strategy is our world-leading agrifood industry, which has been relegated from being a priority sector to receiving only a handful of mentions in the entire document. I hope that the Secretary of State will admit that our farmers and rural communities deserve far better. On trade, if the Government are truly serious about backing British business and going for growth, will they show more ambition on trade with Europe and look to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, which could put rocket boosters under UK plc?
In the extra time that you have kindly granted me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State about access to finance and about addressing inequalities in particular. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on ethnic minority business owners, I have seen for myself the data on how much more difficult it is for those businesses to access finance, and similar data exists for women entrepreneurs. Addressing those inequalities would add a great deal to growth. Finally, when will we see more details about the National Wealth Fund?
Jonathan Reynolds
I warmly welcome the hon. Lady’s support. That section of the Liberal Democrat manifesto was very well written, whoever was responsible for it. There was much that we can all get behind, and it very much made the case.
The hon. Lady is right to say that the Liberal Democrats in government supported the approach we are taking. By the way, I have talked to nearly every one of my living predecessors across the political divide—not all of them, but the ones who have done this kind of work and made a difference. There are some new things in the sectors that we have picked. The creative industries are a brilliant economic, soft power and cultural strength of this country, so it is great to see them included.
On the timescale for energy policy changes, I know that the people who recognise the burden want to see action quickly. I want to see action as quickly as possible. I can make changes to the supercharger scheme and the generosity of it more quickly because it is an existing scheme and the intensity threshold is already in place, but the industrial competitiveness scheme will require legislation to implement it, and that will take more time, depending on how co-operative colleagues are across the House.
I welcome what the hon. Lady said on skills. Skills will always be the No. 1 issue that any business raises with its Member of Parliament. I recognise the case she makes about a fundamental reform. Since the apprenticeship levy was introduced, employer investment in skills has gone down, and that is not what any of us want to see. We will ask Skills England and the industrial strategy council to work more closely on what businesses need to invest in more, and we will ask them to report by the Budget to see whether we can take forward a more comprehensive set of changes. The Department for Education owns that part of the policy, of course, but this is a cross-Government industrial strategy, as it should be. On agrifood, it is a subsector of advanced manufacturing, so the hon. Lady should not worry, because it is included.
The only item of disagreement is trade. I would say that this Government are managing the pressures of international trade better than any other country in the world. The customs union that the hon. Lady proposes would mean that we could not have the trade deal with India, which has brought down tariffs on salmon, Scotch whisky and automotive vehicles. It would mean that we could not have the agreement with the US, which has saved tens of thousands of jobs, so I cannot agree with her on that point. I think we should have closer trade with Europe, the US and the rest of the world.
Finally, I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady on access to finance, and I appreciate that point. This is a core business and economic issue for the UK, not a minor issue. The level of finance that is going to female entrepreneurs, for instance, is not sufficient. We have already explicitly backed some significant campaigns through the British Business Bank and I stand ready to do more. I recognise the important case she makes.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I welcome this incredibly positive industrial strategy that will help us to harness Britain’s potential. The strategy rightly recognises that Stoke-on-Trent has been at the heart of the ceramics industry for centuries. Therefore, will the Secretary of State outline what the industrial strategy means for both our traditional ceramics companies, which produce the finest tableware, and for advanced ceramics with a view to the future?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments in welcoming the strategy. There is a great deal that I could go through. I would get in trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I mentioned the benefits for every sector in the document, but I think we would all recognise the pressure on the ceramics sector through energy prices—much of the industry is gas-intensive, and there are not policy tools for dealing with that in the same way. Only a small number of ceramics businesses currently benefit from the supercharger—I think only eight in total—which is why the test for the British industrial competitiveness programme is a different one. There will be a proper process to assess thresholds and eligibility, but it is designed in such a way that foundation sectors—ceramics is very much included in the material side of that—would get the benefit of the programme.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Belated though it is, the announcement about energy costs is obviously vital to the steel sector. The Secretary of State is well aware of the situation in Scunthorpe. Will he give an assurance that, for the foreseeable future, production of virgin steel will continue in Scunthorpe? Will he work with North Lincolnshire council, which has plans for redeveloping the redundant parts of the site, particularly in respect of an AI growth zone?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member very much for his work. I think the whole House knows of my personal interest in steel and the measures we have taken, including the recall of Parliament and the passing of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 that was required to save his constituents’ jobs. He is right that the investment required in some of the most electricity-intensive opportunities of the future—electric arc furnaces, for instance, were we to go down that route at Scunthorpe —requires the kind of programme that the enhanced supercharger level will get to because of the measures outlined in the strategy.
There is not yet a plan for transition at Scunthorpe. As the hon. Member knows, we have taken control, but we need to resolve the issue of ownership. We continue to run the plant in a way that minimises losses to the taxpayer. That has meant putting more money in up front to run it at full capacity, which I think he will very much support. We will continue to work with anyone in the local area, including him and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), to ensure that there is a bright future for the steel sector. I believe that will be possible based on the policy environment we are putting in place.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
As Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee,, I really welcome this modern industrial strategy because it delivers on the promise Labour made in opposition to put science, innovation and technology and the skills they require at the heart of the drive for growth and industrialisation. I also welcome the strategy as a north-east MP because of the emphasis on regional growth and regional strengths.
My Committee found that one of the major barriers to regional growth and innovation was access to capital. The industrial strategy commits to doubling business investment by 2035. Will the Secretary of State say a little about how the north-east—just for example—might benefit from that?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent honour. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know that she is not one for a fuss, but it is inspiring, and it is great to see that recognition.
My hon. Friend is right that access to finance is a pillar of the industrial strategy. For instance, in the spending review, the British Business Bank’s capacity was increased to up to £4 billion, and the maximum ticket it could write was increased to £60 million as part of that. We also had a huge increase in the capacity of UK Export Finance in the spending review—as my hon. Friend knows, the north-east is a huge exporting region and has the most positive balance of payments of any English region—and its direct lending capacity has increased as well.
We now have a story on finance from UKRI and Innovate UK for innovative start-ups, to the British Business Bank for scale up and maturity, going to the National Wealth Fund, and UK Export Finance supporting every part of that journey. That comprehensive offer is detailed in this strategy document, and it will benefit all parts of the UK, including of course the north-east of England.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of Plymouth’s defence cluster and the national centre for marine autonomy. I am proud that much of this work is being done in my constituency at Turnchapel Wharf and soon at Langage in the Plymouth and South Devon freeport, and that it includes Smart Sound, all of which were supported by the last Conservative Government. Indeed, this did not really need a special name as it was already happening. The Chancellor’s spending review speech initially included mention of £4 billion for autonomous systems split between three locations including Plymouth yet, when checked against delivery, this element was missing. Please can the Minister clarify what funding is available for these autonomous systems’ development in the strategy, in addition to the money announced for the submarine and continuous at sea deterrence programme at His Majesty’s naval base Devonport?
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, I think that was a positive response to the industrial strategy. It certainly sounded like there were some positive themes there. The hon. Member asks a reasonable, specific question about her constituency, and I will check that with officials and write to her so that she has the correct information. If she has had a chance to look at it, she will see that the strategy includes big commitments to the advanced manufacturing R&D budget for a whole range of sectors. We are putting in the money that perhaps was not as firm as it is now in the national finances, but we also have long-term plans in many of those sectors around quantum, advanced manufacturing and aerospace 10-year settlements, for example, to give the kind of assurance and consistency we really need, but I will get her the specific answer she needs.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Representing Tipton, the birthplace of the first industrial revolution, I hugely welcome this industrial strategy and its 1.1 million good jobs. I am particularly pleased to see the Black Country singled out as a centre of clean-energy industries. We recently welcomed £45 million of investment in Eku Energy’s new battery energy storage system at Ocker Hill in my constituency. The action on high energy prices is especially welcome, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend could give us more details about how soon we can expect it to make a difference to businesses in our constituencies.
Jonathan Reynolds
The birthplace of the industrial revolution is somewhat contested by several of us Labour MPs, but we do not need a vote on that. My hon. Friend’s constituency certainly has a rich history and a great future for her constituents, who have been well represented by her since the election. On energy prices, we all want action sooner rather than later. There are some parts of the programme that I can implement more quickly than others, and I have to do this in the proper way and let people consult on the threshold. In my Department, we are often dealing with big inward investment decisions or existing domestic business investment decisions, and if they can have certainty as to where they will get to in a short space of time—many of these are investments that pay back over not just years but decades—that will make the difference. I believe that the benefits can be felt even sooner than the programme can be put in place, but I promise I will stretch every sinew to get it in place as soon as we can.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Businesses have told me how important it is to have a front door for public finance. The strategy references Innovate UK, the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund, UK Export Finance, Invest Northern Ireland, the Scottish National Investment Bank, the Development Bank of Wales, Great British Energy and the Office for Investment, so does the Secretary State believe that businesses know where public finance’s front door is, and that this is as simple as it could possibly be?
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome the question from my honourable namesake. I hope he is not still getting my emails; I get a few of his, and I try and help out where I can on those local issues. He is right: we have inherited a lot, and there is a devolved landscape to this as well. People often ask—we had a conversation in the Select Committee about this—why we do not bring them all into one organisation. It is important to understand that they play key different roles. I cannot remember what page of the industrial strategy it is on, but the different parts of the journey those different organisations represent are specifically addressed. They are there to do different things.
Of huge interest to me is the scale-up point—the serious business-to-consumer point. I think people recognise that there is a lot of capital in the world, but the question is whether it matches the risk profile and opportunities of businesses in the UK. We all recognise the tremendous innovation in this country, but do we always get the long-term benefits of that scale-up happening in the UK rather than going abroad? We do not, and that is what we are seeking to fix. That is the fundamental mission that we are all united behind.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) and I have published a report highlighting the persistent scale-up gap for defence SMEs. I welcome the increase in funds for nationally significant infrastructure projects, but red tape is holding back investment in British single-use military technology, so will my right hon. Friend look at clearing up some of that red tape in order to supercharge investment in British defence SMEs?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much welcome the question and the work that my hon. Friend has done. He has been an ally in ensuring that there are no problems around the defence sector being seen as a legitimate source of business investment and economic activity. We recognise why we need that in the national interest, but we should not in any way be squeamish about the contribution that defence makes because the deterrence value is a fundamental contribution to peace, as well as to economic security.
I can tell my hon. Friend that the strategy commits us to double the amount of the defence budget that goes specifically to SMEs, rising to £2.5 billion a year. SMEs, in diversifying the defence supply chain and creating those opportunities, are absolutely a part of this strategy, and if he has any red tape to show me that we need to get rid of, let’s work together to get rid of it.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is the sixth industrial strategy announced from that Dispatch Box since “New Industry, New Jobs” by Gordon Brown in 2009. While they have all been filled with a box of chocolates selected by the Secretary of State, with his or her preference often underpinned by a huge subsidy, not a single one of them has made any significant difference to the UK’s growth rate, and that is because they all miss a particular piece of the jigsaw. I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that the Government can build as many roads and bridges as they want, train as many young people as they like, pump as much money into the British Business Bank as they want, but unless they can find individuals to take a risk with their own capital, they will not get any investment. Unless these individuals can see a return on that capital, they will not invest. I urge him, as we move towards a Budget in November, to work with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase entrepreneurs’ relief, cut capital gains tax, and reduce the taxation on dividends so investors can see a return on their risk.
Jonathan Reynolds
I hesitate to say this, but I think the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the number of strategies there have been in recent years. It is certainly more than six; we are at 11 in the past decade, or something like that. There have been six Business Secretaries in five years, which is certainly far too many. I think we can all agree that we need some long-term consistency in that area alone.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point on risk. That is one of the more thoughtful contributions I have heard on the low economic growth, mainly under a Conservative Government, since the financial crisis. We have to consider that attitude to risk in terms of regulation. Maybe our role as parliamentarians, when we ask regulators to fix every problem and stop every bad thing happening, is to ask ourselves whether that is the right balance, whether that is a reasonable request, or should it be—of course, with that in mind—proportionate to the performance of the economy.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions some specific measures. We have the lowest corporation tax in the G7 and a competitive tax rate overall, but we are always seeking to improve that. We need supply side tools, fiscal changes and a consistent long-term environment. That is what we seek to put in place.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
This morning, I visited Horiba Mira, which employs thousands of people across the west midlands. It was a privilege to visit with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that one of the highlights of that visit was the excitement on the apprentices’ faces. After 14 years of low investment in the west midlands under the Conservatives, does he agree that this industrial strategy will deliver opportunities for young people and the manufacturing industries in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?
Jonathan Reynolds
It was a pleasure to see my hon. Friend this morning with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I was absolutely blown away by that facility, not just by the obvious “big name” investment from the companies there, but by the young people in particular. Of course, we are trying to deliver a strategy for business, and that requires businesses to have access to the pipeline of people, talent and skills that they need. Within that story, there are so many opportunities and careers for young people. I find that absolutely inspiring. Having an offer for the kind of apprentices and advanced manufacturing we saw today, alongside pride in our service and creative sectors and what we are doing on defence, is all key to ensuring that there are not just the things we need as an economy, but equities and opportunities for young people, as there should be in every part of the UK, to get the lives that they deserve.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
While the UK Government announced a strategy that, as usual, barely gives Scotland any news, the Scottish Government under the SNP have just secured Scotland’s position as the highest ranking destination for foreign investment outside of London and the south-east for the 10th year in a row. While the UK Government refuse to see Scotland’s potential, the rest of the world are lining up to invest in us—think of what we will achieve when we are independent. Does the Minister accept that the only obstacle to Scotland’s success is the continuing devastation of a Brexit that we did not vote for and a UK Government that stubbornly refuse to see Scotland’s potential?
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, you can’t please everyone, can you? I am depressed just from listening to that question.
On the substance of the hon. Member’s question, he is categorically wrong. Look at what we are proposing for clean energy and what that means for Scotland. Look at the new supercomputer in Edinburgh and what that means for tech and digital. Look at the creative industries and the brilliant opportunities there. Look at the ambition on net zero and all the opportunities for investment in Scotland while cutting industrial energy bills.
Of course, there are parts of the strategy that respect the devolution settlement, as we would expect. Skills is something we can only address in England. The money has gone to the Scottish Government for whatever they want to do to take that forward. That is just the nature of a national industrial strategy that respects the devolved settlement. Independence would be ruinous for the economy. It would shed Scotland’s renewable energy potential from the customer base in England. I believe that at the time of the independence referendum, the SNP wanted a UK energy market anyway. If the hon. Member was being honest and candid, he would recognise that there are things that come from the massive strengths of the Union, come what may. This is a strategy that speaks to building on those opportunities for every bit of the United Kingdom, especially Scotland. Scotland’s economy could be described by the eight high-potential industrial strategy sectors in this document, so let’s have a bit of optimism and hope for Scotland.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the doubling of business investment by 2035. I particularly welcome the £4.3 billion of funding for the advanced manufacturing sector, which will directly benefit the AMIDS—advanced manufacturing innovation district Scotland—factory in Renfrewshire, which is in Scotland. Can the Minister say more about how he will work hand in hand with the devolved Administration in Holyrood to ensure that the delivery of the strategy is tailored to local strengths?
Jonathan Reynolds
There is the true voice of Scotland—it is fantastic to hear that optimism and pride for the future.
My hon. Friend is right that there are huge advantages for her constituents in this strategy, which commits the kind of quantum of funding on a long-term, committed basis on R&D, which cuts industrial energy prices and does things across the board. There is so much that is part of the strategy. If I were to break down each of those sectors, I could be here for hours. You would probably get upset with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I read out each of the measures that are part of the strategy.
As I said in answer to the previous question, when we are doing a national industrial strategy, we—entirely rightly—have to respect the devolution settlement, and there are some supply-side areas of industrial strategy that I as the UK Secretary of State do not have control over. It is right to reflect that, to build on that where we can and to work in partnership where we can. There are things I would like of the Scottish Government. If we think of Scotland’s tremendous pedigree in civil nuclear power, all that investment is denied to Scotland because of the policies of the Scottish Government. I have my frustrations, but I will work together where we are able to do so to produce the best outcome for Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Select Committee Member Charlie Maynard.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Secretary of State said,
“The UK has long been and will remain a champion of free trade”
—if only! It is not on the big stuff or the important stuff. Leaving the EU’s customs union and single market has reduced UK GDP by between 2% and 4%. The deal with India is good news, but according to the UK Government’s own estimate, it adds 0.1% in the long term—that is, 20 to 40 times smaller. UK exports are down 13% since the trading co-operation agreement took effect. That impacts people in my constituency and all hon. Members’ constituencies. When will the Government move faster to repair the enormous economic damage of a hard Brexit?
Jonathan Reynolds
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. This was the question that faced the nation at the time of the referendum. If a country leaves a single market and customs union, there will of course be economic consequences, particularly when there is the free movement of people, but that is the decision the country took. Let’s look to the future, not the past. We could have this argument forever. We would have a situation where the business uncertainty created by never fundamentally coming to a settlement on Brexit would in itself become as big a problem as the impact of leaving the single market that he talks about.
Of course, if we were in a customs union without being part of the EU, could a G7 economy subcontract that area of policy entirely to other countries and not have control of a key aspect of our economy? Honestly, I do not think that is reasonable. I appreciate the Liberal position is almost certainly to go back into the European Union—there is consistency there—but I say again that doing so would mean, for instance, denying us the benefits of the India trade deal and services access to India, the reduction of tariffs on agriculture, whisky and cars, and the benefits of the US agreement, which has saved tens of thousands of jobs.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the ambition behind the Government’s industrial strategy, a bold 10-year plan to unlock Britain’s potential. Will the Minister outline how the strategy will align skills provision, particularly vocational and technical training, with the needs of our high-growth sectors such as advanced manufacturing and clean energy?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am getting the impression that you would like more brevity from the Front Bench, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just say that the skills packages will put more funding into courses, and the flexibilities required on those courses that matter, with more capital funding for technical excellence colleges, while ensuring that that is available to every part of the UK.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I was glad to hear defence running through the Business Secretary’s statement. Will he tell us how much equity the authors of the strategic defence review had in the compilation of the UK modern industrial strategy?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much welcome that question. The Ministry of Defence has been a partner in the defence industrial strategy, which mirrors and is closely aligned with, as one would expect, the strategic defence review and the big increase in spending under this Government.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the statement. Will the Secretary of State outline what measures are being taken to ensure that towns like Dudley—which is actually the birthplace of the industrial revolution—receive their fair share of economic regeneration and job creation, and that the current infrastructure in cities is further invested in to generate growth?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s question. She will see a whole range of tools in the place section that are available to both mayoral and non-mayoral areas, which will help to shape local economic plans. She will also see measures to attract inward investment and to strengthen its voice in all the regions, and a whole range of policies that speak directly to business. We are building on the tremendous history and expertise in her area; it will be good news across the board.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the future towns funds, one of which is in Coleraine in my constituency. I want to see many more apprenticeships created through that fund. Will the modern industrial strategy that he has unveiled today be flexible enough to allow funds like that to utilise it to get additional resources, to make them even more successful than they have been so far?
Jonathan Reynolds
There are parts of the skills package that allow for short courses, more flexibility and more foundational apprenticeships, which I think speaks exactly to the challenge the hon. Gentleman puts. If he writes to me on any specific issues relating to the towns fund in his constituency, I will get those answers.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to reduce energy costs. He has heard about the need for that from me, from many other colleagues and from industry, and he has acted. The previous Government did not act; he has gripped on to this. I welcome that, because it will level the playing field for UK automotive, including for BMW Cowley. Of course, we also need action to incentivise domestic electric vehicle production, rather than the purchase of foreign-made electric vehicles. Will that be included in the ZEV—zero emission vehicle—mandate refresh that is referred to in the strategy?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly welcome my right hon. Friend’s question and thank her for all her support for our determination to make sure we have the competitive automotive sector that we all want. She is right that the changes to the ZEV mandate are part of this. They were brought forward because of the pressing urgency—I was not happy with the situation that I inherited from the Conservative party. We closely review the level of consumer demand in the sector and are always willing to work with her and the tremendous businesses in her constituency to make sure we are getting this country’s markets to where they need to be.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Consort Frozen Foods, which is based partly in Burgess Hill in my constituency, distribute ice creams across the UK. It does some distribution overseas as well, but I met its representatives recently because they really wanted to understand how best to access more markets. What advice does the Secretary of State have for Consort Frozen Foods?
Given the comments of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), I also wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to reflect on the fact that the hon. Member’s first role after being elected was as Boris Johnson’s net zero business champion.
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, I think there is no comment I can make on that.
I would say, first, that I imagine that that business has been doing very well in the last few days—anyone selling ice creams has probably seen a pretty solid demand for their products. The hon. Member makes a really good point, though; there is a lot of support for exporting, and businesses do not always know where to find it. The business growth service, which will be part of the small business plan, is an attempt by Government to bring together a single portal of information—to digitise, with a single digital login ideally, all the interactions that businesses have with the UK state. I want to bring together our considerable export offer, along with the export academy and the expertise that we have in markets, to make things very clear, so that a Member of Parliament like her visiting a business can simply say, “This is where you need to go. This is all the resource available, and I can raise any other issues with the Secretary of State.”
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for semiconductors, I welcome the formal recognition of this valuable sector in the new industrial strategy. I also welcome the plans for the future development of the sector, but as always the devil will be in the detail. I look forward to working with the Secretary of State to ensure that the UK semiconductor sector develops to its maximum potential in the next few years, as the essential foundation of so many of our vital industries, like automotive, aviation and cyber-security. Will he commit to regular, ongoing discussions with the leaders of the semiconductor sector?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her championing of that sector, which is significant for her constituency. Part of the approach in the industrial strategy is to recognise eight sectors that are very important—those that have an analytical base—and focusing some attention on them, but it covers those foundational sectors as well. As she has said, other sectors would include steel, chemicals, critical minerals, composite materials, electricity networks, ports and construction. We need the foundations in place if we are to have the kind of success that we are looking at, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on that.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
This 138-page industrial strategy highlights the key problem facing British industry: high energy prices. The Secretary of State is putting in place some measures to reduce them, but surely he could do that earlier than 2027 by removing some of the green levies of net stupid zero sooner. When will energy prices come down for all of British industry?
Jonathan Reynolds
I almost thought the hon. Gentleman welcomed part of the strategy there. That took me a little by surprise. Yes, we are going to take decisive actions to reduce the cost of industrial energy prices. As I said earlier, there are some things I can do quicker than others—the supercharger scheme can be made more generous in the short term—but others require a longer process. I will work as hard as I can to deliver that, but I hope he recognises that the core reason why we are such an outlier is our exposure to fossil fuel prices, including gas, for both heating and electricity prices. To be frank, instead of us going down a route where we will be exposed to that in the long term, without the kind of ambition we need to make sure we have secure, clean supplies of energy in the UK, I think the hon. Gentleman should listen to businesses a bit more. They would tell him everything he needs to address this problem.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Businesses in my constituency are heavily reliant on great connections and making sure that our young people can access the skills they need, so I really welcome this industrial strategy, which recognises the many different aspects that go into supporting our local economy. Can the Secretary of State expand further on what we can do to support better transport connections and a better skills pipeline for the young people in my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, which speaks directly to the challenges we are facing. As well as the action on energy bills, we will make sure there is a priority service for businesses to get the grid connections they need—one of the biggest barriers to investment—along with investment in skills. Something that I am particularly excited about is that we are going to spend £41 million to make sure that there is decent wi-fi on every mainline train service by using the latest satellite technology. If I was coming to Parliament just to announce that, I would be quite happy, if I am being honest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Hopefully the rail line that takes me into my constituency will be the first on the list.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
There is much to like in the statement. I particularly like the reduction in energy costs of between 20% and 25%, but I would like to push the Secretary of State a little on that; so that industry can plan, when does he think those 25% reductions are going to happen?
Jonathan Reynolds
Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has just told me that it is £141 million, not £41 million, to put wi-fi on the trains. It has been quite an exciting day, but it is important that I put that on the record.
Energy prices are one of the fundamental parts of the strategy. As I say, the supercharger can be put in place by the financial year 2026-27; the British industrial competitiveness scheme will have to follow a longer process, including a legislative process, so that would happen in the financial year after that. I know how important this is, but once those plans are in place, businesses will have the certainty that that is the cost that they will face, and they can make their business plans and any investment decisions based on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Business and Trade Committee member, Rosie Wrighting.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s ambition to double business investment by 2035, but on the Business and Trade Committee we have heard time and again from businesses that they face barriers in unlocking the investment they need to scale up. Can the Minister set out how the Government intend to support access to scale-up finance so that our economy benefits from our innovation?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Business and Trade Committee; I always enjoy my sessions there, as do my ministerial team. She is right that finance is a huge issue and scale-up finance is a particular challenge. We intend to use the British Business Bank, as I have said, with much greater financial capacity to work directly with fund managers focused on the scale-up part of the finance journey. I know how big a problem this is. There is a lot of capital in the world and we have got to address this particular stage, and these are real measures that seek to do that.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I welcome that we finally have an industrial strategy for this country; that is very exciting. On driving innovation, I absolutely support that larger British Business Bank and making sure we invest in scale-ups, although we need to make sure that it is about long-term investment and that there are incentives to de-risk investment. I really want to focus, though, on digital and technology businesses. As much as I welcome training 1 million young people, it is not just about young people. I have businesses like BT, Sage and Xero saying they work with small businesses that need to improve their AI and tech adoption, so what are the Government doing to support them and people of all ages?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly agree. It is an exciting day and the challenge is long-term consistency and reliability—which, frankly, this Parliament and previous Governments have not supplied. There is a key voice from business to us that we need to address. Digital and tech skills are one of the prominent features of the skills interventions in the industrial strategy in order to do what the hon. Lady says. It is a significant funding package and a significant partnership with businesses, who are telling us they want to work with Government and with young people and that they want to reskill people. I think there is more we can do, but this is the start. I am keen to work with the hon. Lady and any colleague who sees the urgency of this work and the benefits it could bring.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Questions are far too long and the Secretary of State is far too generous with his responses. Let’s try to nip that in the bud.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York Central, our biggest brownfield site, will release 12,500 new jobs in advanced and digital rail and the digital creative sector, as well as in the bio-economy mentioned in my right hon. Friend’s brilliant industrial strategy. Will he, however, ensure that innovation hubs at the centre of these cluster developments are able to come on-stream and get the funding they need to unlock these sites?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am tremendously excited by the opportunity my hon. Friend outlines. There are many tools she will recognise in the strategy, including the funding for innovation and for local economic development, and particularly the new strategic sites accelerator—for the first time, land assembly, getting the grid and planning in place—so we have these opportunities for the kind of inward investment offers that we receive. My hon. Friend has a very exciting local proposition, and I am looking forward to working with her on it, but we need more of them.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I welcome the investment in skills announced today. What seems to be missing, though, is a commitment to give wraparound support to the 3 million workers in the UK currently in high-carbon industries, who will need reskilling and retraining in order to make the most of the green jobs boom. Can the Secretary of State give us any information on what is planned for those workers specifically, and does he agree that the fossil fuel giants should be the ones shouldering the cost of that support?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Lady for the slightly positive tone of her question. I believe that the skills challenge for the UK is about not just making sure that there are opportunities for young people, but reskilling people too. We have taken forward some interesting measures inherited from the previous Government that will allow us to do it.
I would just say to the hon. Lady that when she condemns people who work in what she calls fossil fuel industries—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps “condemns” is too strong a word, but I ask her to recognise that we have sectors of our own economy that are, relative to other parts of our own economy, high-emissions industries, but on an international basis they are very competitive. It would not be appropriate to simply outsource those emissions to other parts of the world and import those products. There is a lot of Green policy that, frankly, does propose that we do that, but that is not the approach that the Government are taking. We are ambitious about those sectors for the transition and this industrial strategy is key to making it happen.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this ambitious and exciting industrial strategy from my right hon. Friend. Aligning vocational and technical training to the skills our industries need is plain common sense. However, in my constituency businesses often tell me that they cannot access the skills and workers they need, and young people and those retraining tell me that they cannot access the courses they need. Has the Department spoken with the Scottish Government in preparation for launching the strategy today?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes, our officials are in close contact with all our partners in all the devolved Governments. We respect policy differences through devolution, but the kinds of things we are addressing are of interest to every part of the UK.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I congratulate the Business Secretary, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Minister for AI and Digital, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), on listening to me over the last 11 and a half months and including in the sector plan for digital and technologies the Golden Valley development at west Cheltenham. It will unlock £1 billion-worth of investment in cyber-security and defence, which is crucial to our nation. Will Ministers monitor progress in planning and make sure that if a little extra support is needed to get the infrastructure over the line to deliver that growth, it will happen?
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support and the contribution his local area can make. In some areas, we have a lot of good things going on, but it needs to happen faster and we have to make sure that we execute the plans we have in place. That sounds like exactly the sort of challenge in this area that we should commit to.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Ceramics UK has described today’s modern industrial strategy as disappointing and, candidly, I share the sector’s disappointment. The one reference to ceramics in the strategy is historical and geographic, with nothing about industry. For months, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) have been pointing out the immediate needs of a sector that employs thousands of people in our city, yet today there is nothing on gas pricing, nothing on electricity pricing and no access to the supercharger scheme. Instead, we are given an IOU for 2027. What message can I take home to those in Stoke-on-Trent this week about what in this industrial strategy will give them the help and the support that they need today, rather than having to wait for an IOU post-dated to the year after next?
Jonathan Reynolds
I say to my hon. Friend that I think Ceramics UK is misplaced in that criticism. Ceramics is recognised as a foundational sector: it is part of the materials foundational sector in the strategy. Its principal request is about energy prices. There are some ceramics businesses—I accept not that many—that get the supercharger and that will get the more generous rate. But fundamentally, the costs of a lot of those businesses do not match the intensity test, which the supercharger is based on—a sectoral and then an individual business test. That is exactly why the British industrial competitiveness scheme has been designed in such a way that they will benefit from it, and that will be a game-changer for them. There are not the same policy tools around gas prices, but of course we can see that gas prices are projected to fall from the very significant level that they have been at for future financial years.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The industrial strategy has a commitment to increase R&D to drive growth. However, Wales has consistently missed out on its population share of UK R&D funding for years, receiving around 2% rather than the 5% we should be receiving. What are the Government doing to ensure that Wales gets its fair share under this strategy, given that research and development is vital for Welsh business to grow?
Jonathan Reynolds
I absolutely recognise that, in all the initiatives we are putting forward today that apply across the UK, every area deserves its fair share of the funding. Of course, many of the policies that I and the Department are responsible for disproportionately benefit Wales. Under the clean steel fund, the money going to Port Talbot is much more than would be allocated to it by population share. That is because there are brilliant strengths in Wales that I want to support. In this strategy —whether around aerospace and Airbus, or automotive and Toyota, or the creative industries, professional and business services, or financial services—there is so much that will benefit Wales because of the brilliant strengths in Wales. That is something to be very optimistic about, and I would be very confident about what this strategy means for Wales, while, of course, respecting the devolution settlement.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend. With over 5,000 Macclesfield jobs dependent on AstraZeneca, I welcome the health data research centre, the slashing of trial times and the focus on life sciences. Will he set out how he is supporting Department of Health and Social Care colleagues to further deliver for life sciences by finalising a realistic settlement on the commercial agreement over the pricing of medicine, and VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—in particular, as that is very important to my constituents?
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question; he is right that VPAG is significant to the life sciences sector plan and that the industry is looking for resolution on it. The life sciences sector plan will be formally launched by Cabinet colleagues to coincide with the anniversary of the foundation of the NHS. Talks with industry are ongoing and we are trying to find a settlement, which I believe is possible. We should all recognise the economic benefits of the sector for his constituency, which he carefully outlined.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the industrial strategy, but I want to push the Secretary of State on skills. Harrogate college often tells me that it struggles to access funding for technical and vocational training that meets the needs of local business. In the next academic year—in just a couple of months—it will face a £90,000 reduction in the devolved adult skills budget from the new Labour mayor. Will the Secretary of State clarify how the skills mission fund will work in practice for towns like mine, and whether it will be genuinely led by local economic need, not Westminster targets?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. Some of the courses that we need and that are central to our economy—engineering is a good example—are more expensive to put on and need greater capacity. When I talk about a funding package, it is to deliver the business-led, needs-led courses to which he refers, and I would expect Harrogate college to feel the benefits of that.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Rochdale Training provides local apprenticeships in engineering and other skills that we desperately need, and works with local employers to deliver that. Its chief executive, Jill Nagy, told me that today’s announcement of £1.2 billion in extra funding for training is warmly welcomed, as are the new foundation apprenticeships. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the work of Rochdale Training? May I urge him to look closely at Hopwood Hall college’s bid to be one of the north-west’s technical colleges of excellence for construction?
Jonathan Reynolds
Further education has had a difficult time over the past few years and we are starting to see the kind of investment that will make a difference. We need more business input into skills’ policy, which I think is the kind of work that my hon. Friend was talking about. I am more than happy to come up the road from Stalybridge to Rochdale one Friday, and we can have that conversation in person. There will be many bids from Greater Manchester for the capital that we are putting forward, and I look forward to looking at the bid that he mentions.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I commend the Government on reintroducing an industrial strategy, which is crucial for spreading out good jobs across the United Kingdom. In my constituency, the hospitality industry is crucial to our local economy as it boosts tourism, creates jobs and helps with rural regeneration, but it is struggling with sky-high energy costs. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that SMEs in all sectors of our economy, particularly pubs and restaurants, receive better support with their energy costs?
Jonathan Reynolds
This industrial strategy seeks to deliver more inward investment. For example, Universal is making an incredible investment in Bedfordshire, where is seeks to deliver the biggest theme park in Europe, creating 8,000 jobs in hospitality. People should recognise that there is a direct relationship between what we are doing here, what we are trying to get more of and the kind of benefits that the hon. Gentleman talks about. We have set a target of 50 million visitors by 2030, so such issues are represented in the strategy and, as I say, some of the issues that are not covered will be in the small business plan, which will come out imminently next month.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals, I have an interest that I know you share, Madam Deputy Speaker, in critical minerals. I welcome the strategy’s recognition of the role that regional clusters, like that in Cornwall, can play. Given Cornwall’s resurgent critical minerals ecosystem, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the region is at the forefront of secure domestic supply chains, and that we benefit directly from that growth in green industrial jobs?
Jonathan Reynolds
That is a great question. I remember our conversations about critical minerals, Madam Deputy Speaker. They are a key enabler and they will be even more important in the future. My hon. Friend will know that some of the National Wealth Fund’s initial investments have been into different critical minerals businesses in his region, because of the importance of that part of the UK to this strategy. We need more international co-operation on critical minerals as well, but he should rest assured that the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund are focused on this area because it is so important, and there will be big benefits to his area from that.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
As the founder of Labour: Women in Tech, I wholeheartedly welcome the industrial strategy’s ambitious goals to scale our tech sector and workforce. On 15 July in Parliament, I am hosting WeAreTechWomen and Oliver Wyman for the launch of the Lovelace report. The report has identified that between 40,000 and 60,000 female professionals are leaving the tech sector annually or seeking advancement opportunities elsewhere, which represents well over £1 billion of economic opportunity that could be unlocked by better supporting our existing skilled workforce. Does the Secretary of State agree that both inspiring new talent and supporting great existing talent and diverse teams, across all demographics, is fundamental to maximising returns on our industrial strategy investments and securing the UK’s position as a world-leading technology nation?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. It is brilliant to see her in Parliament as she has been a trailblazer on these issues, and I recognise the case that she has put forward extremely well. I recognise that this is a core economic priority for the United Kingdom, and it is great to see her as an advocate for that on the Government Benches.
Jim Shannon
My bronchitis is starting to get to me a little, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The CBI says that our net zero economy grew by 9% in 2023, and that it was 40% more productive and wages in the sector were 15% higher than the UK average, so I am pleased to say that this industrial strategy is betting on a winner with clean energy. I am also pleased to hear the announcement that the Government will be slashing the cost of energy for industry, but will the Secretary of State tell me, my constituents in Bournemouth and people across the south-west what the industrial strategy will do for the south-west?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am more than happy to tell my hon. Friend. We have breakdowns for every region going to every colleague; there is so much for each part of the UK that I could not possibly do it justice from the Dispatch Box. On his point about clean energy, there is so much money coming into the UK—and more in future—that it would be crazy to turn our backs on that. This is a major economic opportunity, as well as being about a safe, reliable, clean supply of energy for the UK, which is the basis of all economic activity. We can provide that while reducing energy bills for industry, so that is exactly the kind of consistent approach that this country has needed for some time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With my apologies for not calling him earlier, I now call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon
You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker—we got there in the end.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which is full of positivity. Everyone here welcomes it deep down, and if they do not, then they should: well done, Minister, and well done this Government. While I welcome the news that more than 7,000 British businesses are set to see their electricity bills slashed by up to 25% by 2027, it is clear that much more support is needed, such as a reduction in corporation tax, especially for businesses in Northern Ireland, which borders the Republic of Ireland where the corporation tax rate is half of our rate at 12.5%. Will the Secretary of State discuss that with his Cabinet colleagues in order to provide greater support for our industries in Northern Ireland?
Jonathan Reynolds
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s support and kind words. There is a great deal in the strategy that will benefit every part of the UK. He knows that I take my responsibilities for Northern Ireland very seriously, particularly given the complexities of trade policy, the Windsor agreement and how that has to work for the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland. He will know that the UK has the lowest corporation tax of any G7 country, so it is quite an ask to reduce it still further. However, I understand the genuine competitive pressures of being in business in Northern Ireland for people who are close to the border, and how they are affected by the mobility of capital and talent. We all have a responsibility to work with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure UK Government policy works to the maximum, and provides consistent and co-ordinated benefits. I am regularly in touch with my colleagues in Northern Ireland and regularly visit. I am planning a visit right now—I might even look up the hon. Gentleman and make a visit to his constituency to address some of these issues.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the focus in this industrial strategy on the Tees Valley region and, in particular, our clean energy sector, which represents some 8,800 jobs today and will scale up dramatically into the future. As I said in September, this will only work if we have alignment on skills. When do we expect to see the clean energy workforce strategy? What steps will the Government take to align skills into the future?
Jonathan Reynolds
It is important for colleagues to understand that the modern industrial strategy published today provides a tool through which other non-economic Government Departments can filter their own policy decisions, in a way that is consistent and to the benefit of UK business. For instance, the Home Office will publish its exemptions to the more restrictive skilled worker visa in relation to what the sectors set out in the strategy need and, for the first time, decisions will be made through that lens. My hon. Friend mentions a specific piece of work by colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on the workforce strategy, to which they are committed. I do not have a timescale for that, so I will ensure that I or colleagues write to him about it. The prize here is genuinely joined-up Government. To be frank, the preparation of the strategy has not always been easy, but it is the kind of consistent approach to policy, competition and competitiveness in the UK that is very important.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I welcome this ambitious industrial strategy and commend the Secretary of State on the long-term thinking, which is something we did not see under the previous Government. East Kilbride in my constituency, Scotland’s first new town, was born out of an effective post-war industrial strategy, but over recent years my constituents have been given false hope by both the SNP and Tory Governments, with big promises and little delivery. Will the Secretary of State give my constituents reassurance that this time, the strategy will deliver and we will get growth and jobs?
Jonathan Reynolds
I will be frank with my hon. Friend’s constituents. In the past, Governments have produced documents that do not have much longevity but have a lot of analysis without necessarily having real measures behind them. That is why we have launched this strategy on energy, finance and skills, on the powers that local areas need and how those programmes will work consistently across Government. This is always about creating the conditions for the private sector to thrive in, but anyone looking at the big challenges facing UK industry will see them addressed in this document.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Worryingly, only 9% of secondary vocational learners are studying engineering, manufacturing and construction compared with the OECD average of 32%, so I warmly welcome that this industrial strategy confirms a £100 million investment to support engineering skills in England. Will the Secretary of State outline how that funding will help to meet skills shortages and deliver growth across the country, including in engineering cities such as Derby?
Jonathan Reynolds
Derby has an incredible pedigree in engineering skills. I agree with the case that my hon. Friend has made so strongly. I have added some funding from my own Department to that from the Department for Education around engineering, because the shortages are so acute and the opportunities so great. These are great jobs, careers and lives for young people or anyone transferring into that sector, with more funding for the courses, more flexibility in the courses that can be run and more capacity in technical excellence colleges. Although it is also about availability in all parts of the country, we could not get a better pedigree than my hon. Friend has in Derby, which is a great success story for this country and for her local area.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the comprehensive and business-friendly UK modern industrial strategy; it is an investment in Britain, British people and British businesses. As home to the world-class and innovative defence cluster, Portsmouth has strength in maritime, space, drones, autonomous systems and assets such as QinetiQ, Airbus, His Majesty’s Royal Navy base, Griffon Marine, Portsmouth Aviation and Solent freeport. I could continue the list with many more brilliant businesses in my city, but time does not allow. Will my right hon. Friend say how “Invest 2035” can work alongside future devolution and local government reorganisation to help unlock growth, investment, skills and jobs for Portsmouth businesses and residents?
Jonathan Reynolds
It is very important that we show the British people that the added investment and huge increase in defence spending from this Government will see real economic benefits for them and opportunities for their families, as well as fulfilling the core function of national security. My hon. Friend mentions devolution. We have measures in the strategy for local areas, whether or not they have mayoral leads on innovation and mayoral growth funds, many of which build on the very successful work of Andy Burnham, my Labour mayor in Greater Manchester, and Richard Parker in the west midlands, who have done brilliant things. Those are the most developed and mature mayoral areas. We can see what has worked in those places, and it really is starting to work. Let us have more of that across every bit of the UK, tailored for local needs and with the right tools that those political leaders need.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I welcome this incredibly ambitious industrial strategy. I will ask specifically about our high-tech SMEs. At NETPark in Sedgefield, we have a cluster of more than 40 businesses making satellite components, medical imaging equipment and other high-tech products. However, as the Secretary of State knows, too often they struggle to get private finance, and they have struggled in the past to get Government innovation funding. How will this strategy really put the rocket boosters behind high-tech SMEs in regions such as the north-east?
Jonathan Reynolds
I always take a close interest in success stories from the north-east of England, and what my hon. Friend outlines is incredibly exciting. The high-tech SME cluster that he talks about will benefit in many ways from each of the sector plans, whether they are in advanced manufacturing, creative industries or defence. There are provisions on access to finance for them in this strategy and the dedication of resources from the defence budget, for instance, for that sector. Those businesses are set to fly, and with this industrial strategy my hon. Friend has a real chance to build and communicate the opportunities for them over the next few years.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I really warmly welcome the modern industrial strategy, particularly all that it has to offer for Scotland. I also welcome the Business Secretary’s personal enthusiasm and energy about the potential for growth in Scotland—what a contrast with the SNP, which cannot help but talk Scotland down. I particularly welcome the good news for skills and innovation, which will benefit Scotland, and for reduced energy costs, particularly electricity costs, for our key manufacturing sites in Scotland. As I have discussed with my right hon. Friend, the ethylene plant at Mossmorran is a large employer in my constituency, supporting hundreds of high-skilled, well-paid jobs in Fife. Will the Business Secretary outline how this industrial strategy and other Government action will back the chemicals industry and the jobs it supports?
Jonathan Reynolds
I think it was about a year ago when my hon. Friend and I were on the campaign trail in her constituency and visited businesses with the message that we would implement a strategy of this kind. I think that the Scottish economy, when mapped against our eight industrial strategy sectors, could be a description of Scottish success, and we should be excited about that. The ethylene cracker at Mossmorran is a very important facility. As my hon. Friend will know, high gas prices across Europe mean that all the crackers across Europe are under some degree of distress. I have been in conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about that and other crackers in Scotland that are affected by those high gas prices, and we continue that work. More generally, the chemicals sector is recognised as a key foundational sector in this strategy. It has had a lot of pressure in recent years, and we are seeking to improve that business environment.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
This is mint for British industry. In my region, we have a proud history of making world-class products and exports. We make trains, and this Government have secured the future of Hitachi at Aycliffe. We make cars, and this Government have negotiated a tariff deal to protect the Nissan plant in Sunderland. We make hugely advanced bioindustry products, such as the covid-19 vaccine, at the Centre for Process Innovation in my constituency in Darlington. As the chair of the APPG on industrial strategy, I know that the finance solutions and energy subsidies will be roundly welcomed by business up and down the country. Will the Secretary of State outline how this strategy will lead to more highly paid, highly skilled job opportunities for workers in constituencies such as mine who have seen more plants shut than saved over the last 14 years?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly thank my hon. Friend for her question and for all her work in her role in Parliament advocating for these issues. There is a huge amount in this strategy for the sectors that she outlines. I was very proud of the work that we did with Hitachi. On cars, it is about the tariffs, the Drive 35 programme, energy costs and the ZEV mandate, and we will make any changes that we need for a competitive position. This is fundamentally about what business needs, but it is also about better-paying jobs in every part of the UK. My hon. Friend’s part of the world in particular will stand to benefit considerably from this programme.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the ambition of this industrial strategy and invite him to visit Cody technology park in Farnborough, which is home to world-class defence and aerospace innovation, from QinetiQ’s development of DragonFire to one of only two commercial wind tunnels in the world. What role does he see for places such as Cody, which are already contributing but have the potential to do even more to help to create jobs and fire up our industrial base?
Jonathan Reynolds
It is brilliant to hear from my hon. Friend; she has so much to be proud of in her constituency. I have visited Farnborough on several occasions, and it has a range of things that are directly represented in this strategy. I also thank her for being a huge ally on the work that we have done on access to finance for the defence sector, which has been an important message for us to send out about national security and the huge economic opportunities that rightly should come from the increase in defence spending that this Government have committed to already.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Black Country has been an industrial powerhouse for hundreds of years; it is famous for making everything from the glass in the White House to the Big Ben clocktower and the chemical odorant that people will smell when they turn on the gas hob. Will the Secretary of State set out how this 10-year plan for industry will support Black Country manufacturing businesses with lower energy prices and upskill the next generation of people for these highly skilled, well-paid jobs? Would he like to visit one of my brilliant businesses in West Bromwich?
Jonathan Reynolds
I certainly would love to visit—I am happy to commit to that. I am surprised that my hon. Friend did not claim her constituency to be the birthplace of the industrial revolution, because I think a few colleagues have gone there, and she has a claim to it as well. Whether it is funding for lower energy costs, skills in the pipeline for young people, access to finance, a regulatory environment that fosters growth or expanding Made Smarter, which is a fantastic programme that we will have more of, there is so much in this strategy that will make a difference to her area. Perhaps we will go and visit some businesses together and take that message to them.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The industrial strategy rightly recognises the role of ceramics as a key foundational industry and, of course, the central role of Stoke-on-Trent not just historically but in the exciting new world of advanced ceramics—providing parts for wind turbines and even small modular reactors, if we get the investment our way. As the Secretary of State has mentioned, ceramics has the additional challenge of being a gas-intensive industry. As such, I welcome the Government’s commitment to the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme—a snappier name would be nicer—particularly in supporting decarbonisation and technological innovation. May I ask the Secretary of State what specific support is planned to aid the ceramics industry, not only in managing its energy costs but in supporting its decarbonisation?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has already heard me outline the eligibility, and the foundational role that ceramics plays in the strategy and the support it can receive. She is also right that we have committed to the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme review that the industry wanted. We should all recognise that the ceramics sector faces more challenges with decarbonisation than some other sectors, and we have to be a supportive partner in that, particularly by recognising some of the technological limitations that currently exist. As I said in answer to a previous question, we have to look at where we are—perhaps we have higher emissions from a sector, but where is that sector internationally? Would it be in our interest to see those emissions exported abroad and emissions as a whole go up? I do not think it would. That is the approach I will always take to the ceramics sector or any other sector to ensure that we are doing the right thing, both for the climate and for British jobs and British industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jacob Collier. [Interruption.] I call Scott Arthur.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member and I must look alike.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Not that long ago, we had a Scottish Government in which some Cabinet members did not even believe in economic growth, so the contrast with what we have heard today could not be starker. There are 16 mentions of Scotland’s capital city in the industrial strategy, and a key one for Edinburgh South West is Heriot-Watt University’s national robotarium—the birthplace of robotics, as far as I am concerned—but it would be interesting to understand where the Secretary of State thinks universities fit into the industrial strategy, given the pressures that they face in England and the many universities in crisis in Scotland.
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend raises some very important and serious questions. Universities play a huge role in innovation and are a vital part of the clusters we are creating, but in themselves, they are something of which we should be incredibly proud. We have a world-class university sector, and every parliamentarian should be prouder of that. I do not have time to go into the detail that I would like, but universities are at the heart of our approach to innovation and economic success across the UK.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
My constituency boasts some of the nation’s most energy-intensive industries, from manufacturing to being the home of UK brewing. As such, I welcome the news that there will be energy subsidies for energy-intensive industries, which will support those industries and local jobs in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State say more about how he will work across Government to ensure that manufacturers and brewers will not be paying champagne prices for power?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise that there are some regulatory issues that my hon. Friend was probably asking about, particularly in relation to the lead that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would have on extended producer responsibility and some other aspects. I am always keen to work with colleagues across Government, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets the answers to his questions that he needs, but he is right to say that there are many opportunities for businesses—big and small—and for his constituents in this plan.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
As an engineer, I am incredibly excited by the vision of engineering, industrial and innovation renewal that the Secretary of State is describing. In Worcester, we have a mission to make ourselves the best city in the best country in the world to start and grow a business. Time and again, though, the funds and research facilities intended to support innovation have not worked for our local businesses, and there has been a lack of support for mid-technology readiness level technologies. How will this strategy help businesses across the country to bridge the valley of death and grow in this decade of renewal?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I greatly appreciate. Worcester plays a wonderful role in our economy, and it is great to hear about that level of local ambition from him and other local leaders. There are specific funds to support innovation: £500 million has been allocated for innovation, which will be split among areas up and down the country. The access to finance provisions will also apply to his constituency, whether that is the British Business Bank having more firepower and more ability to support the kind of items that he has in his constituency, the beefed-up capacity for UK export finance, or the National Wealth Fund working hand in hand with the private sector. The brilliance that my hon. Friend has in Worcester is exactly the kind of platform that stands to benefit greatly from the measures in the industrial strategy.
UK Military Base Protection
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Members will be aware of the news breaking in Qatar, with reports of explosions at 19.35 pm local time. This is a fast-changing situation, and we are monitoring it closely. Members will also understand that I will not be able to give details at this stage, but the UK Government utterly condemn any escalation. We have put force protection measures at their highest level to safeguard our personnel in the region. We have robust measures in place to protect our armed forces personnel, and their safety is our top priority. That is why we have been calling for de-escalation and diplomacy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will understand that I will try to keep this statement short, so that I can return to the Department to be fully briefed. However, there are a number of developments that I wish to update the House about in the meantime.
Earlier today, the Foreign Secretary made a statement updating the House on the military action undertaken by the United States, which conducted airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. No British forces were involved in those US strikes, but the UK and the US share an ambition that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. America is the UK’s closest defence and security ally, and our militaries will continue to work in lockstep every day. As the Foreign Secretary said, this is a critical moment for the middle east. It follows a period of escalating conflict in an already volatile region. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister urged Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis, and I echo that call. There is no route of Iranian military retaliation that brings this crisis to an end; the only off-ramp for Iran is to get serious and return to diplomacy.
The Ministry of Defence’s No.1 priority has been the protection of our people and our bases in the region. Working alongside the Chief of the Defence Staff, Ministers have directed commanders to take all necessary measures to protect our servicemen and women. Force protection is now at its highest state across all deployed units in the middle east. The additional RAF Typhoon jets announced by the Prime Minister have now arrived in the region to reinforce our posture, deter threats, and reassure our partners. I want to be clear that we will not rule out sending further capabilities if they are required, and that we will take all steps necessary to protect our people and our assets. As we recognised in the strategic defence review, we must always put our people at the heart of our defence plans, which is why we have acted swiftly to bolster our defences and ensure our forces are supported and protected. I thank all our outstanding personnel who have worked tirelessly over the past few days—often with little sleep—to support the UK’s response, both at home and abroad.
Further to media reporting over the weekend, I can confirm that we are in contact with the authorities in Cyprus regarding the arrest of a British man. Due to the ongoing police investigation, I am limited in what I can say, but I can tell the House that RAF Akrotiri was not breached. We are continually monitoring this fast-changing situation, and stand ready to respond to any threats.
I now turn to the protection of our bases at home. Last week’s illegal entry and criminal vandalism by the group Palestine Action at RAF Brize Norton was disgraceful. I can confirm that two RAF Voyager aircraft were damaged by paint, but there was no further damage to infrastructure or assets, nor has there been any impact on planned operations from Brize Norton. Not only was this action epically stupid; it was a direct attack on our national security. Our personnel stationed at RAF Brize Norton serve with total dedication and professionalism. They work tirelessly to support our armed forces deployed across the world and to deliver military assistance to Ukraine, and have been formally recognised for their contribution in flying humanitarian aid into Gaza. As such, this action does nothing to further the path to peace. It does nothing to further the Palestinian cause—it does nothing to further any cause—and everyone across the House is united in condemning it. This must never happen again.
I spoke earlier today with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff about this incident. Enhanced security measures across the whole of defence have been put in place since Friday, including on aircraft and airfield-operating surfaces. RAF patrols have increased, physical security has been improved at the suspected point of entry at Brize Norton and the Defence Secretary has ordered that a full security review be conducted at pace, not only at Brize, but across the defence estate. Counter Terrorism Policing South East and Thames Valley police are leading the investigation to establish the exact circumstances of the events and to identify those responsible. We will continue to work with the police and pursue those responsible for this unacceptable act of vandalism. This incident is subject to a live counter-terrorism investigation, so I hope the House will understand that I cannot provide any further details at this time.
This is more than just disruption. Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Its activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that is why the Home Secretary is today announcing that she intends to proscribe Palestine Action.
The instability in the middle east and the continued war in Ukraine show why this week’s NATO leaders’ summit in the Hague matters. We are living in a more dangerous and unpredictable world. This summit is a moment where NATO allies will pledge to step up on defence spending to boost our collective security. President Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte are right that the current NATO spending pledge of at least 2% of GDP on defence is a relic of an old era. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for defence and defence spending. That is why the Government announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. It is why this week at NATO we will discuss a new, higher spending target with our allies. The United Kingdom is up for that discussion. We will make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. As is the custom, the Minister’s statement will be circulated to both sides of the House, but before we proceed, Members will notice that it will not be complete, in the sense that the Minister delivered a preamble prior to going into what will be circulated. That was to try to reflect the fast-moving nature of the situation. I understand that, courteously and properly, the Front Benchers have been informed of that. I hope that everybody understands that and will make allowances for it. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I entirely understand that it is a fast-moving situation in relation to Qatar. I am grateful for the limited update that he could provide. We join him in condemning any escalation and look forward to further updates in due course.
On Brize Norton, let me say what the Minister was unable to: the attack on RAF Brize Norton was not vandalism; this was sabotage, undertaken without regard to the consequences for our Royal Air Force and our ability to defend our nation. As a result, there must be consequences for those responsible. Can the Minister explain how on earth these saboteurs were able not only to break through the perimeter fence, but to cover a considerable distance to reach the precious airfield tarmac, inflict damage to our airframes and then get out of the base, all without being intercepted? What steps is he taking to ensure rapid reinforcement of perimeter and internal fencing, not just at the specific point of incursion at Brize Norton, as he describes, but throughout the base and at all other UK bases? What is he doing to ensure sufficient military policing personnel are in place to enforce security and that they have access to effective countermeasure technology?
On the drone threat, which is relevant, the Minister knows how quickly military technology is moving. In December, I asked him in a written question about the protection of UK bases, and asked whether he would accelerate testing of directed energy weapons, such as lasers, for drone interception on our military bases. He said that work was in development. What progress has he made in the six months since?
The protection of our bases is not just a priority on the UK mainland. Given the confirmation of reports that a man allegedly linked to Iran has been arrested on suspicion of espionage and terrorism offences in Cyprus, can the Minister confirm that all measures being taken to reinforce UK bases will be replicated with the same urgency throughout our overseas basing, Akrotiri in particular?
Can the Minister confirm what will be the financial cost and impact of this attack on the RAF? In particular, can he explain the immediate operational impact on the RAF? He says there has been no impact on planned operations from Brize Norton, but he will know that it could still mean that task lines are unintentionally reallocated to cover for the damaged aircraft. How long will the two aircraft in question be out of action for, if at all, and what has been the wider operational impact?
Turning to the perpetrators, what progress has been made on catching those responsible and have there been any arrests? Does the Minister agree that one way to defend our bases is to deter future incursion by ensuring that the full force of the law is felt by the individual saboteurs in question? Will he ensure that everything is done to work with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the offenders receive an appropriately robust response? I note, for example, that section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 provides for an offence of action that can “endanger the safe operation” of aircraft, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Section 12 of the National Security Act 2023 relates to sabotage, and again the offence carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment.
The review is welcome, but it needs to report urgently. Can the Minister confirm who will lead it and how quickly it will report? On the important issue of personnel, will the review consider how responsibility for the security of RAF bases is divided between RAF police, the RAF regiment, military provost guard service and private contractors?
I join the Minister in condemning Palestine Action without reservation. Its role in this attack on the Royal Air Force was totally unacceptable, and we welcome the steps taken to proscribe that organisation today. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to strengthening force protection more widely in the middle east, including through the deployment of RAF Typhoons, and particularly in light of the breaking news in Qatar.
To conclude, the Minister is entirely right that the MOD’s priority at this time must be the protection of our people and bases in the region. In his opening remarks about the airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities and, indeed, throughout multiple questioning in his media round today, it was totally unclear whether the Government support or oppose those US airstrikes. The Minister was asked seven times on LBC whether the Government support or oppose US military action. He failed to answer once. He is now in front of Parliament. These are matters of the utmost importance to the security of our nation, and he is the Minister for the Armed Forces being asked about the action of the armed forces of our closest military ally. I will conclude with a straight question: does he support the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he has asked his questions and for his support for armed forces personnel. It is important at this time that this House sends a united message that we will protect our people wherever they are in the world, but especially those serving to keep us safe and to keep our allies safe in the middle east.
On the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I agree with him. I expect strong consequences for those responsible for the damage to our RAF Voyager aircraft at Brize Norton. The investigation is proceeding. A number of investigations are under way, including the one commissioned by the Defence Secretary to look into what happened at Brize Norton and to learn the lessons. I can already report that improvements at the point of entry have been made at Brize Norton. There are also investigations to look at what lessons can be applied across UK military estates in the UK and overseas.
I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has a strong interest in drones, and he is right to pursue questions around our counter-unmanned aircraft system activities. Since he asked me that question a number of months ago, we have published the strategic defence review, within which we outlined how we are looking to expand and roll out faster the deployment of the DragonFire directed energy weapon system. It will now feature in a funded programme on four of the Royal Navy destroyers. That will be a testbed for the technology, which we believe has wider applications, including against drones elsewhere across the defence estate.
I can confirm that in relation to the RAF Voyagers, the activities of the RAF were unaffected, because we were able to move assets to backfill those roles. One of the key things about having an agile air force is that we can do that. The investigation of the damage done to the aircraft by the people who penetrated the security is ongoing, and I will report when it has been firmed up more. It is right that we give Counter Terrorism Policing the space that will allow them to conduct their investigation of the incident at Brize Norton, and the hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not be able to provide a running commentary on that. As for the deployment of RAF Typhoons to the region, we currently have about 14 at RAF Akrotiri, and the Prime Minister has made it very clear that should further resources be required, we will not hesitate to roll them forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the position regarding the United States strikes. The United Kingdom did not participate in them, and the UK and the US have a shared ambition that a nuclear bomb should not be held by the Iranian regime.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we all recognise that events are moving very quickly, but may I ask the Minister about two issues that concern many of us? First, we know that the Qataris were notified, and were able to notify the Americans, of the planned attack on their base. Is the Minister in a position to tell us whether any notification of the escalation of attacks was given to this country? Secondly, can he say a bit more about his plans for the NATO summit and our co-operation with our European counterparts? The events of this week showed very clearly that we need, in Europe, to be able to act strategically to defend our interests, and to work together and step up that work.
Luke Pollard
In relation to the events in the middle east, my hon. Friend will appreciate that I will need to be briefed further before I can give the House an accurate update. In relation to the NATO summit, she will be pleased to know that thanks to the European Union reset deal secured by the Prime Minister, we now have an opportunity to participate further in EU defence programmes. The strategic defence review makes it very clear that our priority for our security is the Euratlantic area, and that the largest threat facing us at the moment is Russia; but, of course, Russia works in collaboration with a number of countries around the world, and collectively they pose a threat to the rules-based order. We will continue to work with our European allies, and indeed our American friends, to ensure that we have peace and security across the continent.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and, of course, understand the update that we have just received on developments in Qatar. In this Armed Forces Week, I want to begin by expressing my thanks to all those brave and committed personnel who serve in the defence of our nation. They deserve not only our thanks and praise, but the knowledge that just as they keep us safe, the Government have invested to keep them safe through adequate force protection.
I wish to address briefly the statement on those developments in Qatar, and the breaking news that Bahrain has also sounded alerts pending a potential attack there. Of course I welcome the commitment to the protection of our forces and assets, which is the first duty of Government. However, this development reflects our fears, following the US action on Saturday, that this may be turning into a protracted, full-scale conflict. What is the Minister’s current assessment of the risk to US allies in the region? Will he confirm that UK jets will be used only to protect UK assets and personnel? Can he tell the House what steps are being taken to signal to Iran that the UK’s operations are limited to this protective operation, so that it is clear that we are not being drawn into the offensive operations launched by Israel and the US?
The Minister also said in his update that Akrotiri had not been breached, but can he confirm that none of the other bases in Cyprus were breached in incidents over the weekend?
The authors of last month’s strategic defence review explicitly highlighted the need to bolster the security of our air force, yet, not even 20 days later, we have already witnessed an egregious breach of security at Brize Norton and the damage of RAF planes. This was a brazen and illegal act of vandalism, which raises alarming questions about the level of security at armed forces bases across the country. The Minister referred to the Home Secretary’s decision today to proscribe Palestine Action. Can he give the House a clear understanding of the evidence used to judge that it has crossed the threshold set out in the Terrorism Act 2000?
Returning to the subject of force protection, I would welcome the Minister’s response to the following questions. What initial assessment can the Government provide of how it was possible for the breach at Brize Norton to occur? When do the Government believe the damaged planes will be able to return to service? And is the Minister satisfied that he can sustain the immediate improvements that he described in order to insure the physical integrity of military bases across the rest of the country, including at Army and naval bases, against the full spectrum of threats?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, and for his words in support of our personnel. Armed Forces Week gives us an opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve in our armed forces, to celebrate their service and to make the case that a strong armed forces is good not only for ensuring our security, but as an engine for growth and something in which we can all take pride. I look forward to attending the Armed Forces Day events in Plymouth, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will be doing the same in their constituencies.
Let me now respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. In his seven hours of negotiations in Geneva this weekend, the Foreign Secretary was very clear with the Iranian Foreign Minister about the purpose of UK military assets in the region, and also about the importance of de-escalation and of Iran’s returning to the negotiating table to getting serious, negotiating in good faith and reaching a diplomatic conclusion to this crisis. There is not a military retaliation option that delivers a solution to the crisis; we have made that very clear to Iran, as have our European E3 allies and our Gulf partners, and we will continue to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked about proscription. May I direct him to the written ministerial statement made by the Home Secretary today, which will deal with a number of his concerns? In the Home Secretary’s view, a threshold at which action would become necessary has now been passed, which is why she intends to take the decision to proscribe Palestine Action, as she has announced today.
In relation to the breach at Brize Norton, the hon. Gentleman asked about the strategic defence review. On page 115, the authors note:
“RAF Brize Norton should be a high priority for investment and improvement”—
a statement that we adopted in full when we adopted the strategic defence review and its recommendations. When the investigation has been fully concluded, we will be able to give the House further details of improvements that we wish to make, not just at Brize Norton but elsewhere on the defence estate.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I am concerned by the Government’s kneejerk reaction in proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. This country has a long history of protest, as I mentioned in the Chamber last week; some of the protests have taken place at British military sites, and none of those protesters have been branded terrorists. Last Friday, Palestine Action spray-painted two aircraft at Brize Norton—the first time that the group had taken action on British military land. Yes, they were guilty of criminal damage, but not of terrorism. Even the former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer said that this action would not justify proscription. If there is evidence, show it. Can the Minister set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that peaceful protest activity is not wrongly categorised as a national security threat?
Luke Pollard
As there is an ongoing counter-terrorism inquiry into the activities of Palestine Action, which conducted a direct attack on UK military assets at a time of heightened tensions, it would be inappropriate for me to go into the full details. I will say to my hon. Friend, though, that the proscription of Palestine Action has been considered for a long time by my colleagues in the Home Office. It is a decision that they have taken after considering the facts—those in the public domain and those, perhaps, held privately. We are certain that this is the right course of action to keep our country safe in these difficult times.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
My constituents in military establishments around Salisbury plain will not see this as an act of vandalism. They will see it as criminal damage. They will see it as sabotage. They will see it as terrorism. The Minister, who I respect, does himself no good by trying to downplay its seriousness.
There are 2,900 Ministry of Defence policemen in the country. In recent years, they have been employed largely in investigating relatively low-level fraud within the Ministry of Defence and in military establishments across the country, with a relatively low conviction rate. Does the Minister agree that they would be much better employed looking after our critical national infrastructure and military bases up and down the land, including those in my constituency, and will he consider ensuring that warranted officers are able to do a job of work for the MOD that cannot be done by regional forces? I am very confident that they would welcome the challenge.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Member, who I also have a lot of time for. At no point have I sought to downplay the activities of Palestine Action. Indeed, today the Government have taken the strong step of proscribing Palestine Action, precisely because its activities are a threat to our national security. It is for that reason that the Home Secretary has made her decision.
In relation to the military bases near the right hon. Member’s constituency in Salisbury plain, and indeed to those in the constituency that I represent in Plymouth, the review of our security arrangements covers all military bases. From the Defence Secretary to the Chief of the Defence Staff and others in the Ministry of Defence, we are looking carefully at what lessons can be learned, what improvements can be put in place and—noting the conclusion of the strategic defence review that we need to invest more in this area—how we can implement the findings of the SDR as quickly as we can.
In relation to the right hon. Member’s points about policing, I would be very happy to discuss them further with him, because I know he is an expert in this area.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
As I am taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the RAF, I have had the greatest pleasure and incredible privilege of visiting many RAF bases over the last year, and I am in absolute awe of those who put their lives on the line to defend us. The events of last week were not only a breach of our defences; they were a massive demonstration of disrespect for service personnel who will have been delivering aid to people in Gaza. Does the Minister agree that we should thank them for their service and that it was right to proscribe Palestine Action?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right about the disrespect shown to our forces and their personnel. The threat to our national security posed by breaching the security of a military base and approaching military assets is something that we take incredibly seriously. The British public want to know that the full force of the law is being used to locate those responsible and bring them to justice, and I can confirm that the investigation is ongoing. The steps that the Home Secretary has taken today to proscribe Palestine Action are entirely consistent with the severity and seriousness of its activities.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The actions of Palestine Action at Brize Norton last week were utterly reprehensible and will have caused fear and alarm for military personnel and their families across the country, including in my own constituency, which has three substantial military bases. At the same time, though, the UK Government are not ruling out engaging in further military conflict in the middle east. The Minister mentioned the importance of the international rules-based order. How can the UK Government seriously be considering engaging in further military intervention abroad, given that years of under-investment has diminished security at bases right here in the UK, which causes concern for our armed forces personnel and their families?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and for his obvious concern for our armed forces. The statement that I made today and the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary over the past few days clearly underline that the deployment of UK military force in the middle east is to defend our people and our bases. It is worth reminding ourselves why we have a UK military presence in the middle east: to support regional stability and to undertake counter-Daesh operations in Iraq and Syria. They are the same operations that help keep the streets of Britain safe from terrorists. That is the reason we have a presence in the middle east—securing our allies—and it is why the Prime Minister flowed forward additional jets to provide cover and support for our armed forces personnel. As we assess what is taking place currently, we reserve the right to make further military changes to ensure that our people are kept safe.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Standing Joint Command, based in Aldershot, for its contribution to UK resilience. In Armed Forces Week, I also pay tribute to the more than 3,000 serving personnel in my constituency, the home of the British Army. The Minister has been really clear about what force protection looks like when it comes to bases, but what will it look like for garrison towns like mine?
Luke Pollard
In my hon. Friend’s short time in this House, she has become a real champion of our armed forces—not just in her constituency, but across the country. She is right to pay tribute to SJC in Aldershot; General Charlie Collins is a superb leader of that part of our armed forces. The SDR makes it very clear that we wish to further enhance and upgrade the capabilities of UK homeland defence, and we will do so.
In relation to the security improvements that the review will seek to identify, that work will be based on the incident at Brize Norton, but it will also look at the threats that we face not just at that particular RAF base, but at all UK military establishments. I am certain that I will be back in the House to report on progress in due course.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Given the manner of infiltration at RAF Brize Norton, I am concerned that the MPGS across the defence estate is neither resourced sufficiently nor given the authorisation to engage potential saboteurs. The scope of its role allows lethal force to be used only if there is a direct threat to life. RAF Wyton in my constituency, which has the same issue, is protected by the MPGS and augmented by serving personnel. Given the sensitive information that it provides as the home of defence intelligence, can the Minister offer a guarantee that security levels there will be ramped up? Furthermore, RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury are both in my constituency. As USAFE—US air forces in Europe—bases, they operate under US rules of engagement, so lethal force is permitted at a far lower level. Why are US bases in the UK defended to a higher level?
Luke Pollard
In the spirit of cross-party consensus, I praise the hon. Gentleman for making a huge contribution to the way in which we look at defence in his short time here. We have made no cuts to the MPGS since taking office; indeed, the opposite is true: we seek to enhance and further support it. The review that the Defence Secretary has commissioned will look at all military bases, at what lessons can be learned from this incident and at how we can improve. To date, there has been a lot of focus on article 5 of the NATO treaty and how we will come to the aid of others if attacked, but we should have an equal focus on article 3 and how we ensure our own homeland defence. That is something that the SDR makes very clear, and this Government take implementing it very seriously.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Minister will know from my earlier question about force protection how important it is to take that issue seriously, and it is right that that is the main focus today. But if I may, I want to address an issue that reared its head over the weekend, given that I am one of the only female veterans in this Parliament. Unfortunately, certain pathetic little people took the incident at Brize Norton and decided to come out of the woodwork to criticise people for doing their job while being female. As a woman serving in the armed forces, I know that every opportunity that has been given to women has been earned through our serving on operations and proving time and again that we are worthy to be there. When I was serving, I was very conscious that I had to be perfect, because any fault or flaw that I showed would be held not just against me, but against all the women I was serving with. Will the Minister stand up and say to every woman serving in the armed forces that we respect and recognise their service?
Luke Pollard
I commend my hon. Friend for her words and for her service. The comments that were made at the weekend about our serving military personnel are outrageous, and I notice that there is not a single Reform MP here for this statement. Let me be absolutely clear: I believe that all parties present in the Chamber today back our forces. We do not take to Twitter to mock them. We respect service on a cross-party basis. We do not belittle senior officers based on their gender or experience. We need to be better than that. Just as we ask our armed forces to address cultural concerns, we need to be alive to that in our politics as well, and to call out misogyny wherever it rears its ugly head. Let us send a united message from all the parties present today that we back our armed forces, that we want to see a change in culture in our armed forces, and that we value the contribution of everyone who serves, especially those brave women who have done so much to secure our national security in recent years.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. As it is Armed Forces Week, it is entirely appropriate for the Chair to have allowed the Minister to respond to that question, even though it was not strictly in line with the statement. But from now on, given the time that we have available, we have to come back to the statement itself.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I am not sure that this question is appropriate any more, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ironically, on Saturday the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) demonstrated his ignorance of RAF force protection by tweeting that Group Captain Louise Henton’s background in human resources led to last week’s infiltration of RAF Brize Norton. It was a disgusting attack on a senior officer—my previous squadron commander—who has dedicated her career to armed forces service and to bettering the lives and lived experience of our personnel. Will the Minister therefore join me in thanking all members of the armed forces and in condemning the remarks of the deputy leader of Reform?
Luke Pollard
Alive to your words, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones).
It is so important that, when we make the case for respecting our armed forces, we recognise that those who serve are not able to respond to comments made in the political arena. They are prevented from doing so, and Members of this House must therefore have our armed forces’ back. We must be able to call out behaviour that is not acceptable, just as we back our forces. I hope that all serving members of our armed forces will be able to see today the full-throated and full-throttle support of this House for those who serve.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I commend the Government for the swift action they took to proscribe Palestine Action after its brazen actions at Brize Norton. I would like to raise concerns about another related group called the Islamic Human Rights Commission. It has expressed support for proscribed terrorist groups and used UK platforms to spread anti-British propaganda. There is strong evidence that it is directly linked to the Iranian regime. Indeed, placards celebrating the ayatollah and talking of being on “the right side of history” were seen at protests at the weekend. What assessment have the Government made of threats to national security beyond Palestine Action, including from this group?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am afraid that a Government Minister’s usual line about proscription is that we do not comment on it except when, as today, I have been able to confirm that a group has been proscribed following the Home Secretary’s decision. I encourage my hon. Friend to have a conversation with the Security Minister, who is sitting next to me.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I must say that I am very surprised that the Home Secretary chose to put out a written statement, rather than making an oral statement, when we could have put to her some of these points about what exactly qualifies a group to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.
I entirely agree with the sentiment in the House that Palestine Action sabotaged these planes, caused criminal damage and could be liable to a charge of criminal conspiracy, and that the people who did the damage should be pursued for remuneration to the point of bankruptcy. However, it would do the country and the Government no favours if they were to lose in court a challenge to the process of proscription, because whereas the secret sabotage of planes would certainly have been an act of terrorism leading to proscription, the fact is that this was a performative act that these people announced they had done. My advice to the Government is to make sure, when these people are prosecuted, that it is not solely on the grounds of committing terrorist acts, rather than committing treasonous acts of sabotage.
Luke Pollard
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a full debate in this House in the coming days as part of the proscription process, so in due course he and all Members will have an opportunity to debate in full the proscription decision the Home Secretary has taken. I can tell him that the decision to proscribe has not been made without considerable thought, or without reflecting on the information in the public domain and information that perhaps is not, and that it was underpinned by a very serious legal process. I would agree with his concern, but I seek to reassure him that those matters have been considered as part of the process.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I have a substantial military footprint in my constituency, not least Redford and Dreghorn barracks, so I welcome the statement. I have two questions. The first is on the situation overseas. I really welcome the comments about force protection, but it would be good to hear whether the families back home are being kept up to date, because I am sure they are worried about our service personnel—their relatives—overseas.
On Brize Norton, this was an ill-informed and ill-advised attack by a group that, frankly, revels in lawbreaking, as we can see on its website. The irony is that all of us here oppose the humanitarian consequences of what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza; all of us are united in that. All of us are here to protect and respect people’s right to protest, but that cannot extend to leaving our armed forces personnel feeling threatened or equipment being put out of use, even temporarily. I welcome the base review, and no doubt that will include the bases in my constituency, but it would be good to hear about what is happening for families who are off-base. Will there be fresh advice for families, and when it comes to upgrading their military homes, will we be looking at security to make sure they are kept safe?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for the support he provides to the armed forces in his constituency. The force protection measures we have introduced as a Government are there to keep our people safe. We are at the highest level of force protection for deployed forces in the middle east. As part of that, we have sought to draw down non-essential personnel to make sure that the footprint is as appropriate as possible. That includes families, but they are very limited in number given the theatre we are talking about. The investment in military housing that he mentioned is certainly a priority for this Government because, frankly, the state of the homes we inherited was not good enough, which is why we are investing £1.5 billion extra in this Parliament to provide homes that really are fit for heroes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Direct action at military bases is nothing new, and we remember with respect the women who marched from Wales to Greenham Common and the thousands of women who joined them. They did not just march; they pulled down fences and criminally damaged infrastructure. So does the Minister recognise the risk implicit in proscribing as terrorist organisations protest groups calling out war?
Luke Pollard
I say to the right hon. Member that this is not a protest group, but people who have undertaken severe criminal damage to military assets and who are increasingly using violence as part of their modus operandi. The decision by the Home Secretary has not been taken lightly, and it reflects the seriousness of the intent of that organisation. I welcome free speech and I welcome debate and challenge, but vandalising RAF jets is not free speech; it is criminal damage. That intervention on a military base is, as I said in my statement, not only epically stupid, but a threat to our national security, and the Home Secretary was right to proscribe the group.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for the urgent review he has launched, and the Minister for the leadership he is showing. I join Members from across the House in condemning the appalling attack at Brize Norton, which I was privileged to visit earlier this year with the RAF parliamentary scheme.
As well as attacking military installations, Palestine Action has launched violent assaults on defence businesses, including in my constituency. As well as rightly holding a review of military base protection, will Defence and Home Office Ministers review what additional security measures and advice—through the MOD, the police and other bodies—our defence manufacturers may need in the coming years as we ramp up defence production?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for championing defence as the Member of Parliament for his constituency. He is exactly right in highlighting that Palestine Action has targeted not just military bases, but defence businesses—businesses employing people up and down the country and contributing to our national defence. He is right to do so, and I can reassure him that conversations between the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, police forces and those in our defence supply chain happen regularly, and we will continue to keep them abreast of developments and the concerns we may have.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given that a female officer commands Blandford Camp, I totally echo the comments made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones).
There will be a lot of concern among personnel in the camp and those who live in the communities around it that they are now targets for either home-grown domestic terror or those who may be described as “sleepers” in our country from countries and regimes that do not wish us well. Could I invite the Minister to find a way to confidentially ensure that Members of Parliament across the House who have military bases in their constituencies, as I do in North Dorset, are advised as to whether those installations pass the test of security or whether work needs to be done, and if it does, to what timeframe it will happen and what work is involved? There will be a lot of anxiety in those communities, and MPs across the House can play an important part in allaying those concerns in their communities.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he approached his question. I share his concerns to ensure that Members of Parliament are adequately informed about defence. Indeed, it was the Defence Secretary’s intent, when we took office, to renew and refresh the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and Parliament with a more open conversation. We are endeavouring to do that with further briefings and I will take his suggestion on board as we look at how we implement the review.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
First, on Armed Forces Day, I want to thank all who serve and have served, including my own son, and recognise the huge contribution made by our armed forces, alongside all service families in Portsmouth, the very proud home of the Royal Navy. Secondly, I would like to say a huge “Thank you” for Armed Forces Day on Saturday, and for being able to take part in the flag raising in my city to show my gratitude and respect to all those serving.
Given the fast-changing landscape alongside the recent disrespectful incident at RAF Brize Norton, with so many armed forces personnel based in Portsmouth and personnel from Portsmouth based around the globe, can the Minister confirm whether wider action is being taken to review and strengthen security across all our military bases, in both the UK and abroad, and what force protection measures are in place to keep our personnel and their families safe here, abroad and in my city?
Luke Pollard
As the MP for Devonport, can I say to my hon. Friend, the MP for one of the Portsmouth seats, just how proud we are of our Royal Navy, no matter where those ships or capabilities are based? It is certainly true that the review commissioned by the Defence Secretary looks not just at what happened at RAF Brize Norton, but at the application of that lesson across the defence estate. The force protection of our people, both home and abroad, is a priority for this Government. We will be undertaking the review at pace and I suspect I will be back in front of the House in due course to announce further measures.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
On the proscription of Palestine Action, I remind the Minister that there are number of recent examples of juries finding defendants, in cases similar to the Brize Norton incident, not guilty based on a necessity defence, as people believed they were acting from a desire to prevent war crimes. Given those juries were clearly able to draw a proportionate line between direct action protest and serious crime, does the Minister agree that the use of the Terrorism Act in this case sets a dangerous and worrying precedent?
Luke Pollard
The dangerous and worrying precedent was set by Palestine Action when it breached an RAF base and vandalised Royal Air Force planes. I entirely respect those who wish to protest, raise arguments and use freedom of speech, but let me be entirely clear: vandalising and attacking RAF planes is not the way to do that. Indeed, it poses a direct threat to our national security. That—and for many other reasons that you will appreciate I may not be able to go into in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker—is the reason the Home Secretary has taken that decision. When the debate on proscription comes forward, as it will in coming days, I hope the hon. Lady will be able to contribute to that debate and further understand why the decision was taken by the Home Secretary.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Given the gravity of the emerging situation, I do not think there is anyone in this House who would begrudge the Minister for needing to return to be fully briefed on what is happening. But while he is here, will he confirm whether wider action will be taken to review security across all our bases in the UK from extremist threats in the light of last week’s incident?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the encouragement to head back to the Ministry of Defence; I will be hightailing it back there as soon as this statement is over. The review commissioned by the Defence Secretary will look at what happened at RAF Brize Norton, but also at what lessons can be applied to our military bases, the defence estate across the UK, and our overseas bases. Keeping our people safe and keeping our ability to protect our country, safe and free from interference, is vital for this country. That is why we have undertaken the review.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
When organisations such as Palestine Action break into military bases, damage secure facilities and put our personnel at risk, they are not just protesting but sabotaging. With that in mind, if any other extremists had carried out those tasks they would rightly be described as domestic terrorists. Does the Minister agree that this is not legitimate protest, it is domestic terrorism and that any attack on our armed forces’ infrastructure should be seen thus?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I often find the phrase “Flip it to see it” is useful to identify whether there is inbuilt bias in how we approach a topic. As he suggests, if we were to flip Palestine Action to a number of other groups, it would clearly be regarded with the same seriousness with which the Government are approaching it. I am very glad that the strong message, on a cross-party basis, has gone out today that what we saw in Brize Norton is unacceptable and that it is right that we take measures to keep our national security safe.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Could I ask the Minister to think carefully about the contributions made today by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) concerning naming somebody as a terrorist, when they are in fact protesting about the appalling events in Gaza and the treatment of children by Israeli forces? It is surprising that in the Minister’s statement, which described a lot about the military situation all over the middle east, he said not one word about the illegal occupation of the west bank, the illegal occupation of Gaza and the deliberate starvation, contrary to all aspects of international law, of the civilian population of Gaza. Can we not deal with the fundamental issue, which is the illegal activities of the Israeli Defence Forces in those scenarios?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman speaks passionately for the Palestinian people and has done so for a very long time. This statement was about not Gaza but the force protection of our military units in the middle east. But as he has given me the opportunity to do so, let me say very clearly that it is this Government’s position that what we see in Gaza is intolerable. We need to see a restoration of the ceasefire, we need to see Hamas release all the remaining hostages, and we need to see aid at scale delivered to the Palestinian people and a step towards the lasting peace that comes with a two-state solution. There is a lot of work to do in that respect.
On the word “terrorist”, I was very careful with the language that I used in the statement. It is powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 that are being used. When the Home Secretary issued the written ministerial statement, she was also very careful about the language she used. The actions of Palestine Action have now crossed the threshold under provisions in that Act. That is why she has taken action today.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Armed Forces Minister was asked a direct question by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. It was simply this: do the Government support the United States’ actions in Iran over the weekend? The answer he gave was that he agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. That is not the answer to the question he was asked. What is the answer? Do the Government actually know whether they support the US action? If they do know their own mind, why will he not tell us?
Luke Pollard
The Foreign Secretary was very clear, when he was at the Dispatch Box for his statement earlier, that the UK and the US share the same long-term ambition to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Let me associate myself with the remarks about Armed Forces Week from Members across the House and the condemnation of the escalation of the situation in the middle east. Is the Minister able to explain to me if there will be any additional security measures at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, given the unique nature of what is happening there?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the college at Harrogate. It is a really important part of the defence family and I know that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is sat next to me on the Front Bench, takes an especially keen interest in the affairs of Harrogate. As the review is conducted and we see what lessons can be learnt from the incident at Brize Norton, we will be taking measures possibly at all military installations, including training establishments across the country if that is suitable. But I am certain that the Minister for Veterans would welcome a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman in relation to Harrogate in particular.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember that Willie Whitelaw famously offered his resignation after an intruder made his way into Buckingham Palace. Has the Minister considered his own position?
Luke Pollard
Given the seriousness of the issues we are discussing, my focus, and the focus of every Defence Minister, is on ensuring the protection of our people. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is looking for a soundbite, but I believe he may have wasted a question where he should have been talking about how we can protect our people in the middle east and back home in a secure way.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I join with all Members of this House in thanking everyone who works so hard at RAF Brize Norton in my constituency, led very effectively by Group Captain Lou Henton, who is an example to us all. I very much respect and admire how the community in Carterton, right next to RAF Brize Norton, has pulled together at this stressful time—they have done a fantastic job. We have really underinvested in security at the base for a long time. Like many Carterton residents, I have walked the perimeter quite a few times, and know that that fence is not formidable. What assurances can the Minister give that this airbase and other defence facilities around the country and internationally will have their defences strengthened for air, sea and land attack?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the local community around Brize Norton, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the details of what occurred from our point of view and the measures that can be put in place. The initial actions taken by the Defence Secretary have identified a number of immediate steps that we are taking to further secure the base, but I would be happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about that further.
The hon. Gentleman is right that much of our armed forces estate and our armed forces have been hollowed out and underfunded for far too long, which is precisely the reason that I welcome the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027. Our armed forces are brilliant, and it is time they had first-class facilities.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Humza Yousaf, the former First Minister of Scotland, has invited those in this place to check their moral compass over the proscription of Palestine Action, but I think we have heard here today that no one is seriously suggesting that these people are anything other than saboteurs, and that anyone who expresses sympathy for them has their moral compass spinning like a peerie, as we would say in Scotland. Mr Yousaf further suggested that American aircraft using Prestwick airport in Scotland could leave us open to charges of war crimes, and I wonder whether the Minister agrees with me that that is absolute nonsense. Prestwick airport is owned by the Scottish Government—in fact, it is a civilian airport, although it is heavily used by our allies, in particular America and Canada. What can we do to protect those aircraft at that civilian airbase?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that airfield in question. Civil-military co-operation—using civilian infrastructure for military purposes—is a model that we may look to develop further, especially as we look to increase our warfighting readiness in the future, so the lessons about security need to be applied. Luckily, many of our European allies operate civil-military airfields, so there are good models that we can look to on how to do that.
On the accusation that the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of a Member of the Scottish Parliament, let me say clearly that the UK military operates only in compliance with international humanitarian law. That is absolutely vital. If an order is given that is contrary to international humanitarian law, our armed forces are not required to follow it. It is that high standard that means our armed forces are respected worldwide.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The statement speaks of enhanced security measures across the whole of defence, so will the Minister review the recent decision to downgrade some of the security measures at Northern Ireland bases, including removal from the permanent base? On the strategic defence review, to allow our RAF personnel to respond quickly and effectively, are we looking at further utilisation of Aldergrove in my constituency?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the security changes that we have introduced at bases and reserve centres in Northern Ireland. It is certainly true that we had reservists guarding largely empty buildings, which is something we have addressed with increasing physical security measures to ensure that they are safe. We are looking across the defence estate as part of the review the Defence Secretary has commissioned, but I would be happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman about Northern Ireland, should he want to.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
When an extremist minority spreads division and intimidation and now has even attacked our military, prioritising foreign regions and their interests above our own, it is an attack on our country. It is treason. The primary job of our Government is to protect the UK, so I welcome the announcement today that the Government are taking action to do just that.
I was proud to celebrate Armed Forces Week at the flag raising ceremony in Runnymede this morning. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all our armed forces staff and the work they do for us all?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he has provided to our armed forces in Armed Forces Week—a week to thank those who serve and celebrate their service. It seems only appropriate, on a day where I am at the Dispatch Box talking about the necessary force protection of our people, that we take that responsibility doubly seriously today and all this week. While there may be party political differences between Members across the House, I believe there are British values that we all share. One of those is respect for the rule of law, and another is respect for our armed forces. The pride in our armed forces that I have as Minister for the Armed Forces is the same pride that I see on a cross-party basis—pride in all the men and women who serve in our forces. Let us hope that across the country, in Armed Forces Week, we can all join in thanking everyone who serves and the families who stand behind those in uniform.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As the MP for Surrey Heath, I am proudly the MP for all the recruits, cadets, staff and officers at Army Training Centre Pirbright and Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, a privilege that I share with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow). I am sure everyone on those bases will be reassured to hear of the work that is being done to look at security; I think that is particularly the case where bases are highly integrated into local communities. I wonder whether the Minister might also be able to offer some reassurance to local cadet forces, who wear uniform on our behalf.
I want to focus my question on our forces in Cyprus. The Minister mentioned that Akrotiri had not in any way been infiltrated. Can he offer the same assurance of Dhekelia, as well as our other sites on Cyprus? What are the Government doing to ensure that all those in uniform on Cyprus, whether or not they wear blue berets, are being properly briefed and secured on our behalf?
Luke Pollard
Again, in the spirit of cross-party support, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he offers to those at the training establishments in his constituency. We have some truly remarkable people in our armed forces, and it is good to see cross-party support for their work.
On our sovereign base areas in Cyprus, it is essential that we look not only at how we can protect them, but at how we can protect them from the risk of Iranian retaliation, why is why we have enhanced the force protection measures on our bases in Cyprus. It is also why the Prime Minister has ordered the further deployment of Typhoons at our base at RAF Akrotiri, and why we are investing in ground-based air defence there. We will be looking at further measures in the months ahead as we seek to implement the strategic defence review, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the work looking at security will affect not just those at our UK bases, but our overseas personnel.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Last but by no means least, I call the ever-patient Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement today and for his clear commitment. I want to describe Armed Forces Week in Newtownards in my constituency. On Saturday, 60,000 people came to pay their respects to those who serve in uniform. Whether they serve in the Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy, they are part of our community, and the community showed its solidarity with them for their courage, bravery and dedication. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) was right, by the way. I met the lady who will take over at Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn at the end of this year—again, an indication of the commitment of those women and ladies, who can do the job equally well as anybody else.
The actions of those criminals at Brize Norton may cause up to £30 million in damage, as well as the security measures that will have to put in place. However, the true cost of their actions cannot just be measured in money; it is the anger that right-thinking people have towards those pro-Palestine activists who would attack our military to make their political point. They are a threat to those of us who live in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This terrorism cannot be accepted. It reminds so many of us—especially those from Northern Ireland—of dark days gone by. Will the Minister acknowledge the righteous anger of the good people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and what steps will the Minister take to ensure there is not a repeat in Aldergrove, or indeed any other military base with British personnel here or abroad? Some of my Strangford constituents are stationed at these military bases, not just in the United Kingdom but across the whole world.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on Armed Forces Day in his constituency. Across the entire United Kingdom, there is real pride in the men and women who serve in our armed forces. Although this may be a difficult week for international affairs and we may be looking at more debates about force protection than we might ordinarily have, let us all take a moment out to make sure that we thank those people who serve, thank their families for the support that they offer, thank those people who work in the defence industries that equip our people with the cutting-edge gear that they need, and thank the society that stands behind them—because our armed forces are only as strong as the industry and the nation that stand behind them. I hope that everyone watching the debate will have been able to see the strong cross-party support for our armed forces and the strong sense of support as we seek to improve security measures to ensure that we protect our people, at home and abroad.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am sure that the whole House, on both sides, will concur with the Minister’s final remarks. I thank him and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.
Points of Order
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The grave situation in the middle east is developing, with further reports from Qatar, and I will return from the Chamber to be briefed further, but my wider accountability to this House is important.
On 12 June, the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), tabled a written question about the Defence Command Paper 2023, pursuing the exchange that we had had on a point of order before the strategic defence review statement that I made to the House on 2 June. As we prepared to publish our SDR, it became clear that there were no established departmental procedures for sharing major defence publications with the Opposition Front Bench ahead of publication. I asked defence officials before 2 June and have done so since the shadow Defence Secretary’s question, but they have still been unable to find any departmental record of a copy of DCP ’23 being shared with me as shadow Defence Secretary.
However, having now checked my Opposition staff records from July 2023, I can confirm that an embargoed copy of DCP ’23 was dropped off at my office, along with the conventional “check against delivery” advance copy of the Defence Secretary’s statement. We took a similar approach with the SDR: the shadow Defence Secretary received a hand-delivered, embargoed copy of the SDR with my draft statement around 90 minutes before the statement began. However, unlike 2023, we also offered the shadow Defence Secretary an advance ministerial briefing on the SDR, which he declined.
I welcome the chance today to correct the record from my point of order on 2 June. The House will also wish to know that I have now established a formal procedure for sharing defence strategies in advance of publication with the Opposition, the Select Committee and other key parliamentarians—something that I have also discussed with Mr Speaker. [Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the Secretary of State for his point of order and for placing that on the record.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for advance notice that he would be giving a point of order, although not of the exact detail.
This is extremely important, because while there is no set process, there is a ministerial code, which clearly states that commercially sensitive information should not be given out to the media prior to being given to Parliament. To reiterate, on that day, yes, we were given a hard copy of the SDR 90 minutes before the statement, but I was already in the Chamber for the urgent questions arising from that situation—officials would have known that we were in the Chamber—and was unable to read it. However, at 8 o’clock that morning, senior people from the biggest defence companies in the land received a hard copy of the SDR.
The key thing is that, on the point of order on 2 June, I said to the Secretary of State that the situation was unacceptable, and he justified the procedure on the fact that, at the time when I was a Minister—I quote him—
“We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.]
His justification was something that is not the case, and I said that in my immediate response to him. I am glad that, three weeks later, he has corrected the record.
We have war in Ukraine and all the instability in the middle east; there should be consensus on matters of national security, and we should not play games on the most important strategic defence review for many years. I hope that we can now draw a line under this, but to enable that, I hope that the Secretary of State will say to his special advisers and officials that they must be as transparent as possible in all pursuant written questions on this matter to which we still await answers and in responses to freedom of information requests.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The shadow Secretary of State has placed his view on the record. He will understand that that is not a matter for the Chair any further, but I hope that whatever lessons need to be learned will have been learned, and I am sure that, on both sides of the House, that is correct.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the middle east earlier today, I asked the Foreign Secretary:
“In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?”
Just a few minutes after I asked that question, Iran launched an air attack against US bases in Qatar and Iraq.
The Foreign Secretary evaded providing a coherent response by referring me to 2.13 of the ministerial code. In the current version of the ministerial code, published on 6 November 2024, there is no 2.13; chapter 2 finishes at 2.7. I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, in understanding why the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House by quoting made-up references to the ministerial code to avoid scrutiny. Should he, as one of the great officers of state, return to this place and clarify why he is not on top of his brief?
Mr Deputy Speaker
First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to imply that the Foreign Secretary was deliberately misleading the House. [Interruption.] That said—
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Look, he just—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order!
That said, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has given the Foreign Secretary notice of his intended point of order, but I think that that is a matter that he will have to raise with the Foreign Secretary himself. The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair cannot answer for Ministers, but he has made his point.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Friday, many colleagues in this House spoke of compassion, sympathy and understanding. Unfortunately, the same compassion, sympathy and understanding were not extended to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). His father-in-law, my constituent Mr Adrian Lawther, was nearing the end of a very full life, and he rightly wanted to be with his wife and her family at that time. He sought a pair for Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill from the promoter of the Bill and the Government Chief Whip, as well as seeking advice and support from the Speaker’s Office.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I was with the hon. Member at the departure gate waiting to return to Northern Ireland when his wife called to tell him of her father’s passing. It now appears that other Members were able to avail themselves of proxies in the hands of Government Whips. The hon. Member should not have been forced to travel to this place to have his vote recorded. I seek your advice, Sir, on the best approach to seek a remedy to ensure that we in this place can support each other to the best of our ability and at times of great personal need.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. May I first express my sympathy to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and his family? I take it that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) notified the hon. Member that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber today.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you.
As the hon. Member will know, pairing is not a matter for the Chair; it is an arrangement between hon. Members individually and their Whips—and of course I could not possibly comment any further on that. However, the circumstances under which a Member is eligible for a proxy vote do not at present include family bereavement. If it wished to do so, the House could change that, but I am not able to do so on my own account. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee has been conducting a review of these arrangements, which might include matters such as pairing.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Speaking at the Labour party conference in Liverpool in 2022, the Prime Minister said:
“one of my first acts as Prime Minister will be to put the Hillsborough law on the statute book”.
The Prime Minister said “the Hillsborough law”, not “a Hillsborough law”. This was an actual Bill that had its First Reading in March 2017, tabled by Andy Burnham and written by expert lawyers.
As the parliamentary lead for the “Hillsborough Law Now” campaign and a Hillsborough survivor, I want to put on record the campaign’s grave concern about the status of the Hillsborough law. The Prime Minister missed his 15 April deadline after a replacement Bill was shown to lawyers involved in the campaign, who made it clear that it contained none of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and did not deserve the name, and it was rejected out of hand.
It is rumoured that the Government could be about to table another replacement Bill, still without any of the key provisions of the Hillsborough law and without allowing Hillsborough lawyers, families or survivors to see it. Government officials have even suggested that parliamentary procedure means that they are not permitted to first share it, despite the fact that that is what they did with the previous draft in March. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your guidance on whether the draft can be first shared, as it was before, to give us a chance to raise any concerns before there is another betrayal of Hillsborough families and survivors, and all victims of state cover-ups.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It will not surprise him to know that I did not attend the Labour party conference in 2022. The King’s Speech announced that the Government would deliver their manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law by introducing legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public servants. It is, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, up to the Government to decide how they go about preparing legislation, and that includes whom they consult and when. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will play a major part in the scrutiny of the legislation when it is presented to Parliament.
Pride Month
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Secretary of State to move the motion.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
Not Secretary of State, Mr Deputy Speaker—well, I don’t think so.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I should say, I do not know anything that the hon. Gentleman does not know.
Chris Bryant
And the things you do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker—anyway.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Pride Month.
I should start by declaring an interest in this Pride debate. The Daily Mail once referred to me as an “ex-gay vicar”. I am an ex-vicar, but the other stuff is coming along quite nicely. In fact, I am a practising homosexual—one day I will be quite good at it.
People ask me, “Why on earth do you need a Pride Month? Do you really need LGBT History Month? What’s the point of Pride marches and Pride flags? Hasn’t the world changed? Haven’t you already got same-sex marriage and adoption, gays in the police and the military, and laws that protect people from discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender reassignment? What more do you want?” That is what I hear all the time, even from really well-meaning, liberal souls.
But we have always needed Pride. We needed it when people lazily assumed that a short haircut meant that you were a lesbian or a lisp meant that you were gay. We needed it when people laughed at Larry Grayson and John Inman but forced them to hide their sexuality. We needed it when people said that we should be harassed, arrested and locked up for loving who we wanted. We needed it when the police wore rubber gloves to arrest us, just in case we gave them AIDS. We needed it when we were called queer, faggot and arse bandit at school. We needed it when we were sneered at, spat at, punched, kicked and beaten up.
And we need Pride now—when kids are still bullied because they are camp or butch; when families still throw their LGBT children out of the home; when many are so worn down by abuse that they take their own lives; when so many are so terrified of coming out that they live lives of terrible, crushing loneliness; when people are abused for wanting to transition; when our cousins in Hungary are denied the right to demonstrate; when the state police in many countries deliberately entrap homosexuals; when trans people are treated as less than human; and when homosexuality is still illegal in 63 countries, including 38 that apply those rules to women, and including more than half the Commonwealth. Yes, we still need Pride.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt such a magnificent speech. The first Pride march in London was in 1972, and I have met many people who were on that first Pride march who thought that they would never need to march again, but they still need to march now. Does my hon. Friend feel sorry that Pride organisations have now said that no political parties are allowed to march because of how the LGBTQI+ community has been treated? I will still be marching, because I march with other groups, but does my hon. Friend agree that this is a sad state of affairs?
Chris Bryant
I think we should be proud of the fact that politics has changed the law in this country, and political parties were absolutely essential to that. I pay tribute to everybody in my political party who for many generations fought for equality—but that is true for the Conservative party as well, where people in many cases had to be even braver than they did in the Labour movement, and of course in many other parties as well. I do agree with my hon. Friend; I think it is an entirely retrograde step to ban people from political parties from taking part in Pride marches.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
In contrast to the Minister, I fully support the decision that has been made by the major Pride organisations to tell us that as political parties we are not welcome this year on parades or marches. Is the Minister not as sad as I am at the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights that has directly led to this action?
Chris Bryant
I will come on in a moment to some of the problems that I think we have, but when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, there were still many laws in this country that drastically affected the rights of LGBTQ people in this country, and it is because of political parties that we changed the law. We should not discard the democratic process; it is absolutely essential to being able to secure our rights.
We need to remember that in this country we used to hang men for having sex together and imprison them just for meeting or sending each other a love note. This is a serious business, but we also need to celebrate. I remember that on one of the Pride marches I went on, we shouted all the way, “We’re here, we’re queer and we’ve not gone shopping!” We chanted it all the way down Oxford Street, which is ironic in itself.
We have to celebrate, because not every LGBT story is a tragedy, and I wish the film and television industry would learn this. We are extraordinarily normal. That is a terrible word, really, but we are phenomenally normal. We bleed when we are cut and we laugh when we are tickled, and we can defy every stereotype going. I hate to break it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but not all gay men like musicals—I don’t understand that, but I have met a few—and apparently not all lesbians enjoy tennis or smoke cigars. [Interruption.] I do not know what is going on behind me.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I would like to put on record that I have never enjoyed a cigar, although I would dispute the fact that most lesbians do not enjoy tennis.
Chris Bryant
I am not sure whether it is tennis or tennis players—a bit like rugby and rugby players.
We can laugh at ourselves—of course we can—and it is a really important part of this that we are able to do so. A Member of the House of Lords told a colleague the other day that I was too macho. [Laughter.] That was not meant to be funny, actually. I replied, “What? As in the song that goes ‘Macho, macho man’?”—perhaps the campest song ever written.
People also still ask me why we need to come out. They say, “Can’t you just keep it to yourselves?” Let me explain. The rest of the world will always assume that most of us are straight—heterosexual—so it is a complex process when we learn that we are not like others. Unless you are very famous, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have to come out time and again, every time that somebody presumes that you are heterosexual.
We need to need to celebrate what LGBT people have given us. That includes Alan Turing, Ivor Novello, George Michael, John Gielgud, Alec Guinness, Wilfred Owen, Oscar Wilde, Edward Carpenter, Anne Lister, Maureen Colquhoun, Radclyffe Hall, Virginia Woolf, Clare Balding, Jess Glynne, Alex Scott, Jane Hill, Skin, Nicola Adams and Sandi Toksvig—and, from the Rhondda, I would add Daniel Evans, H from Steps and Callum Scott Howells, who go to prove that I am not the only gay in the village.
Coming out, Mr Deputy Speaker—I do not know why I keep on addressing this to you, as if you should suddenly leap forward—matters.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I think the Minister has been here long enough to understand that, actually, matters have to be directed through the Chair; he is entirely correct.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I thought there was a reason.
Coming out matters for our personal pride and our collective pride, so that every boy and girl growing up does not internalise hatred, scorn and shame as used to be the case but learns cheerful happiness and opportunity, and so that every family can take pride in their LGBT child, sister, cousin or aunt. From the first bricks thrown at Stonewall to this month’s marches, Pride is a movement rooted in resistance and the refusal to be silenced, sidelined or shamed. It is about visibility in the face of erasure—and, talking of Erasure, it is about a little respect.
There is one final reason that we need to celebrate Pride. The safest place in the 20th century for gay men was Germany in 1930, where men danced together and loved one another with impunity. But, within a decade, the Nazis were carting them off to Dachau and demanding they inform on others. When the war was over—perhaps equally shockingly—nobody wanted to memorialise them; we were erased, and erased from history. Our hard-won freedoms are never won in perpetuity; we need to secure them again and again in every generation. Progress is never inevitable; it must be defended, deepened and delivered to every generation.
Today, we speak against a backdrop of heightened tension. In the last decade, we have seen the consensus around LGBT+ rights begin to fray, we have seen public debate grow increasingly toxic and we have seen trans people in particular subjected to fear, misinformation and ridicule. Pastors in the United States today are calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Jonathan Shelley in Arlington said that
“we should hate Pride, not celebrate it”.
On the shooting of LGBT people in the Pulse nightclub in 2016, Donnie Romero, who is also a pastor in Arlington, said that those who were killed were
“all perverts…they’re the scum of the Earth and the Earth is a better place now”.
That is what we are still facing today.
That is why the Government will not tolerate about a rolling back of rights, nor a politics of division that pits one group against another. That is why we are delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. Those so-called therapies are nothing less than abuse. They do not work, they cause deep, lasting harm, and their continued existence is a stain on any society that claims to be inclusive. Draft legislation will be published in this Session, informed by wide-ranging engagement and guided by the need to protect, not punish—to prevent harm, not criminalise care.
We are also working with the Home Office to equalise all hate crime strands. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who raised the matter last week. No one should face abuse, violence or discrimination because of who they are or who they love, yet across the country LGBT people—especially trans people—are being targeted with growing intensity. In too many cases, the law does not yet offer equal protection. That is not justice; the Government will act.
We are also improving access to fertility services for lesbian and bisexual women. As of November, same-sex couples are no longer subject to unnecessary additional screening costs for IVF, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines, which will help to ensure more equitable access to NHS-funded treatment, regardless of sexuality or relationship status. This Government recognise that building a family is a human aspiration, not anyone’s privilege.
We are also strengthening healthcare services for trans people. We are launching a review of gender identity services to ensure they meet modern standards of equality, safety and accessibility. That includes reducing waiting times, expanding service capacity and improving mental health support throughout the transition journey.
We are investing in housing solutions for young LGBT+ people at risk of homelessness, too. Far too many are pushed out of their homes or fall through the cracks in mainstream services. We will soon establish an inter-ministerial taskforce on this, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, to co-ordinate efforts across all Departments.
Our commitment to dignity and equality does not end at our borders. Right now, 63 countries criminalise same-sex activity, and in 13 of those countries the death penalty can be applied. At least 49 countries actively target trans and gender-diverse people with discriminatory laws. In many of those countries, shamefully, that is a direct legacy of British colonial rule: legislation that we imposed continues to harm people. We cannot undo the past, but we must take responsibility for the future, which is why the UK is a proud member of the Equal Rights Coalition, why we have invested over £40 million to support global LGBT rights, and why our diplomatic missions work every day behind the scenes to support local advocates, challenge repressive laws and offer hope to those facing persecution. If there were any Reform Members in the Chamber, I would point out that that sometimes means putting up a Pride flag.
We are seeing a backlash, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) said, but we are also seeing breakthroughs. This year, Thailand became the first south-east Asian country to legalise same-sex marriage—hurrah! In Namibia and Dominica, consensual same-sex acts were decriminalised. In India, the Supreme Court is reviewing discriminatory blood donation policies. There is light in this tunnel.
I want to address the recent Supreme Court ruling, because I know it matters to a large number of people. It was, of course, a significant legal judgment, and one that has understandably prompted discussion and—in some cases—fear. Let me be absolutely clear: the rights and protections for trans people under the Equality Act 2010 remain firmly in place. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment still applies. Discrimination, harassment or victimisation of trans people is unlawful and will remain so under this Government.
The ruling has offered important clarity for service providers—particularly those offering single-sex spaces—and we respect the Court’s decision. We reject any attempts to weaponise the ruling to roll back the hard-won dignity and inclusion of trans people. This is not and must never become a zero-sum debate. We can protect single-sex spaces based on clear, lawful criteria while also protecting the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people who—let us not forget—are among the most marginalised and misunderstood in our society.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome the tone with which the Minister has approached this really important point. Will he touch on the proposed guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which he will know is out for consultation? One section that really concerns trans constituents is about disclosures and requiring trans people to disclose their identity. I have to be honest: that seems to be nothing short of outing trans people. Will he provide reassurance that we will not see a situation in this country where trans people end up being compelled to out themselves?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a good point; that is very important. Indeed, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 lays down clearly the privacy responsibilities of other Government Departments. In fact, one of my anxieties when we were considering the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 was that we seemed to be getting to a place where people would have to present their passport or a document to prove whether they could access a single-sex space. I honestly think that the rights of both these groups can be respected fully. We surely must be the kind of society that can achieve that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister is rightly pointing out where progress has been made nationally and internationally, but when he was cantering through those points of light nationally, he missed out one group: the men and women serving in our armed forces. I am particularly mindful of that because Saturday is Armed Forces Day and, sadly, one of the chief advocates for LGBT people in the armed forces, Lord Etherton, died in May. Will the Minister pay tribute to Terence Etherton and comment on his 2023 report into the shameful way in which gay people were treated in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000?
Chris Bryant
I am really grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point, and it is good that it is a point of agreement across the whole House. There was a time when large numbers of people in this House would have thought that having gay men, lesbians or trans people in the armed forces was anathema, and I am so glad that we have changed. The shields on the wall up there are dedicated to Members of Parliament who were killed in the second world war, and at least five, if not six, of them were gay men who gave their lives in defence of this country. Bravery is available to people regardless of their sexuality or their identity. The right hon. Gentleman is also absolutely right to refer to Terence. His report was an essential part of changing the landscape in this country and making sure that compensation was available to the individuals who were affected.
We should acknowledge the fundamental truth that trans people have always been at the forefront of our movement. From Marsha P. Johnson in New York to Mark Ashton here in the UK, trans people and gender non-conforming people have led protests, shaped policy and built community, often with little recognition or safety in return. At Stonewall, at section 28 protests, in the founding of support services and HIV charities, and at the heart of every movement that pushed us forward, trans people were there and they led. We owe them a debt of gratitude, so to treat them now as a threat to the very movement they helped build is wrong. We will not forget their role, and we will not leave them behind. Trans people deserve safety, dignity and the same freedom to live their lives as anyone else, and under this Government they will have it.
On 29 August 1924, Edward Carpenter had his 80th birthday. He had famously campaigned for our rights and lived with his lover, George Merrill. Indeed, he was probably the model for E. M. Forster’s novel “Maurice”, which I think was published only after E. M. Forster’s death. Carpenter was a brave campaigner at a time when it was impossible to be brave. Men were still being imprisoned with hard labour for homosexuality in 1924, when he came to his 80th birthday, so it was a phenomenal act of bravery when every single member of the Labour Cabinet—there was a Labour Government in 1924—signed a letter to Carpenter wishing him a happy birthday.
That kind of magnanimity should be the hallmark of our politics today. We are not yet the country that we could be, but in all we do in our hospitals and our schools, in our laws and our language, in our foreign policy and our public services, this Government will uphold one principle: a little respect for all. Let that be the legacy of this House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am sure the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to intervene later on.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the Minister and to speak in this important debate. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House, across my Daventry constituency and across the country a very happy Pride Month.
The Minister is absolutely right to say that Pride is still needed. I have certainly seen significant changes over my lifetime, including things that I never thought would be possible when I was growing up as a young gay man in Anglesey, but he is right to say that these are important issues that we should continue to discuss. On the whole, I have been privileged to have a life in which I have been accepted pretty much everywhere I have lived, but I have had those difficult occasions that I have spoken about before, not least being badly beaten up and my father coming to my rescue and being beaten up too, trying to protect his son. Those are the things that we need to remember.
We also need to remember people like the young man that I heard about in Manchester a few years ago who had been kicked out of his home because his parents could not accept his sexuality. His life took a nosedive and, sadly, he ended up selling himself for sex to survive. He was eventually murdered by someone who he was supposedly trying to get some money off. These are the disgusting consequences that may happen if we do not remind ourselves of the journey that we have been on as a country.
I have to say that things are pretty good for me. Most of the time, most people do not care that I am a gay man—
Stuart Andrew
Yeah—but I am butch like you! [Laughter.]
As I was saying, most people do not really comment on the fact that I live with a man. They are more interested in the fact that he works for Marks & Spencer and gets 20% off. But it is important that we have these conversations because there are still people around the world, and in communities in this country, who cannot come out. There are people in communities in our country who live a different life from the one that they want to live, and there are people around the world, as the Minister rightly says, who will be put to death if they love the person they really want to love.
That is why Pride Month is important, and its theme of activism and social change emphasises a reflection on the contributions of LGBT individuals and communities in creating a better world for us all. We are lucky in this country that we have a host of people in our history who have been at the forefront of fighting for equality. Yes, there are the famous people—Dame Kelly Holmes, Tom Daley and Sir Ian McKellen, to name but a few—but there are so many inspiring LGBT people from right across the decades, as the Minister mentioned.
I would like to mention Sophia Jex-Blake, Scotland’s first female doctor, who fought for so many women to be allowed to train as doctors and founded medical schools up in Scotland, where she eventually met her life partner, whom she lived with until her death in 1912. I also want to mention Patrick Trevor-Roper, who was one of only three witnesses who could be convinced to appear before the Wolfenden committee. His evidence helped to start the journey to decriminalisation. Those people, in my view, are incredibly brave.
Given that we have commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day this year, I think we should also remember one of my personal heroes, Dr Alan Turing, a man whose brilliance cracked the Nazis’ Enigma code. This was an incredible feat, given that Enigma had 159 million million million settings. He played a crucial role in cracking the intercepted messages that enabled the allies to defeat the enemy in the Atlantic and in other engagements. We owe him so much, but his treatment later, when he was prosecuted for being gay, is a shame that I know we all find abhorrent. The Government rightly apologised and he was later posthumously pardoned. In my view, he is a true hero of our nation.
Of course, we have had champions in this place, too—people like Chris Smith, who bravely became the first openly gay MP; Edwina Currie, who led a debate on changing the age of consent; and too many other hon. and right hon. Members to name. I do want to name one or two from the Conservative side because I know everyone will do their own pitches. There are people like our former colleague Eric Ollerenshaw, who was on that first Gay Pride march in 1972. He recalled to me that he was actually spat at by the police—that is how bad it was. There are people like Mike Freer, who campaigned hard on issues like PrEP, and our former colleague Elliot Colburn.
I would like to take this opportunity to say happy birthday to LGBT+ Conservatives, which celebrates its 50th birthday this year, making it one of the oldest LGBT-affiliated groups for a political party in the world—a title it shares with LGBT+ Labour. I wish LGBT+ Labour a happy birthday as well. In 1975, the LGBT Conservatives were established by Professor Peter Walter Campbell. I am that old that I have seen LGBT Conservatives go through several guises over the 30 years since I first joined. Back then, it was known as TORCHE—Tory Campaign for Homosexual Equality. I pay tribute to the work it has done over those 50 years.
Little did those founders and that first generation of our LGBT Conservatives and Labour know it, but they were merely years away from a global HIV/AIDS epidemic. Around the world, hundreds of thousands of people would lose their lives, including people here in the UK. Gay and bisexual men lived in fear, and many felt powerless and hopeless. If we fast forward to 2025, we find ourselves in a truly different world, and I want to thank all those who have made that change possible. I recognise that those contributions have come from parties across this Chamber, and I thank them all for it.
I am proud of our record as a party over the last 14 years for the lives of LGBT people, not least the rolling out of highly active antiretroviral therapy treatment for HIV in England and funding the first ever HIV testing week. In 2013, we introduced same-sex couples’ marriage in England and Wales, which was one of the most memorable debates in my time in the House and one of my proudest moments here. We introduced the legalisation of self-testing kits for HIV, as well as a host of other things that we are proud to have done.
I also want to remark on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is no longer here, about people in the armed forces and to pay tribute to Lord Etherton. When I was the Equalities Minister, I had the privilege of meeting him several times as he went through that report. He did not just get evidence from thousands of people; he personally read every single testament because he wanted to know those stories inside out, and thank goodness he did that. I pay tribute to him for the work he has done.
Thinking about all these achievements and those of former MPs and other inspirational figures, I find it appalling and deeply disappointing that some Prides across the country have banned our political parties from this year’s parades. LGBT Conservatives, LGBT Labour, LGBT Lib Dems and all others are not allowed to attend. Like the Minister, I also remind the organisers that it was these groups and so many MPs in this House that brought about the changes we enjoy today. As Jo Cox said, there is more that unites us than divides us. Them causing this divide is a retrograde step, and I pay tribute to the likes of Owen Meredith and others who have taken up this fight. I call on the organisers to think again, especially as two parties celebrate their 50th birthday in terms of LGBT issues.
I am aware that many colleagues want to contribute, but I have a couple of questions for the answering Minister. I would like an update on the HIV programme. It touched me that people across the House want to embark on that ambition of having no new HIV infections in this country by 2030; of course, we have only one Parliament left to get that done. Could the Minister set out where the Government are up to on that and what plans they have to ensure that we meet that ambitious target? Will the Government ensure that they are working with our devolved regions to ensure a UK approach to eradicating new HIV cases—not just England, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too? We can end new HIV cases without a vaccine or cure, and wouldn’t it be great for the UK to be the first place to do so? We want the Government to succeed on this issue, building on a lot of the work that we did in office and working with great organisations like the Terrence Higgins Trust. Let us make that an ambition for all of us. Let us remember why we have Pride in the first place, and make this Pride count.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am imposing an immediate three-minute time limit, with the exception of the Front Benchers.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism for opening this important debate and giving us this opportunity, and for doing it in such a poignant yet joyful way. I am also honoured to be sharing the Chamber with both of my predecessors; I think that shows that this is an area where we do have more in common.
From boxing champion and sporting legend Nicola Adams to beloved playwright Alan Bennett and award-winning composer Angela Morley, Leeds has produced countless trailblazers who are part of the LGBTQ+ community. In true Yorkshire fashion, we don’t do things by halves. Leeds boasts one of the biggest LGBTQ+ communities in the UK. From The Bookish Type, an independent bookshop, to the Leeds Queer Film Festival in our city centre, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), Leeds has so much to offer, thanks to our vibrant community.
In my constituency of Leeds North West, many local businesses are celebrating and showing their support with vibrant rainbow flags and Pride-themed window displays, such as Courtyard Creativities in Horsforth. There is so much to celebrate, but there is still work to be done. The community, as we have discussed already— I am sure more will come—still faces discrimination and last year, sadly, 10,000 hate crimes were reported to West Yorkshire police. I am proud that we are leading the charge, committing to strengthening our hate crimes legislation until everyone is free to live and express themselves without fear.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; happy Pride Month to you, the whole House, my North Cornwall constituency and, indeed, the whole country.
Pride Month is a celebration, but it is also a protest and a call to action—a reminder that the hard-fought rights we won must be defended and that the injustices still endured by many must be tackled, both here and abroad. We have already heard that around 64 countries still criminalise LGBTQ+ plus citizens. As a Liberal Democrat, I am extremely proud to belong to a party that has been at the forefront of the fight for LGBTQ+ equality for decades. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) moved the amendment that repealed the appalling section 28 in 2003, and the Liberal Democrats introduced same-sex marriage while in government, which enabled me and thousands of others to get married on the same basis as everyone else.
But today we face a new wave of hostility, aimed particularly, it seems, at the trans community, which I will come back to. First, I want to focus on one group that is often overlooked: LGBTQ+ veterans. I have been supporting campaigners fighting for recognition, justice and dignity for those who were dismissed from our armed forces simply for being who they are. One of them, Adrian Radford-Shute, lives in my North Cornwall constituency. He was forced out of the Intelligence Corps in 1996 because of his sexuality, and he suffered horrific physical and sexual abuse. The trauma of that experience still lives with him and thousands of others—severe post-traumatic stress disorder and a lifetime of silence, without the recognition of the huge sacrifices that they made for this country.
Adrian and others campaigned relentlessly, and finally, in December, the Government launched the LGBT veterans financial recognition scheme, finally offering some redress to those who are dismissed under the ban. Some, if not most, of those veterans also faced the most horrific cases of rape, abuse and other forms of unforgivable violence and coercion. Few were believed, and many were told that it was their own fault. I fought hard alongside Adrian to ensure that no veteran was left behind, regardless of rank or the circumstances of their dismissal.
After direct engagement with the Ministry of Defence, I was assured that officers forced to resign would be treated equally to those administratively discharged, but the progress in reviewing cases has been abysmally slow. Of around 1,300 applications to the scheme, just 24 have been paid out. At this snail’s pace, it will take up to 17 years for all those brave veterans to finally receive their compensation and their closure. This is a national scandal. While other military compensation schemes quite rightly award up to £650,000, the LGBTQ+ veterans compensation scheme is capped at just 10% of that. As a country we are currently asking ourselves how we can attract more recruits to our armed forces, but we do not treat our veterans with the dignity and respect they deserve. In this Armed Forces Week, I urge the Government to take action immediately to speed up these payments.
Today, two thirds of LGBTQ+ people in the UK still report experiencing abuse or violence because of their sexuality or identity. Trans people in particular face constant attacks. Just a few weeks ago, I witnessed a vile incident with abuse hurled at a trans person walking down a high street in my North Cornwall constituency. In 2023, a Home Office report found that comments by politicians and the media over the previous year could have led to a huge spike in such offences. That brings shame on this House and our entire country.
Ms Creasy
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly powerful and important point. One word we have not yet used in this debate is allyship. One challenge is that too often it falls on to the shoulders of our LGBTQ+ sisters and brothers to fight these fights because those of us who would consider ourselves allies maybe have not been as vocal as we have needed to be. Let all of us pledge, allies alike, to join the fight to make sure we live in a country where everybody can be who they want to be without fear.
Ben Maguire
I warmly welcome the hon. Lady’s offer of being an ally, and I agree that it is so important to the LGBTQ+ community to have that alliance.
As well as politicians, public figures desperate for attention and relevance such as J. K. Rowling have poisoned the public discourse with attacks on our trans community, all under the false dichotomy that it is not possible to be a true feminist and protect women’s rights without attacking and abusing the trans community, a phoney culture war which has left trans people fearful just to be themselves. The tone of this debate has been so un-British. It is much more like the US, where everything is dealt with in extreme absolutes: black and white; right and wrong; no compromise; no respect or compassion for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. It is horrible to see how hate has been weaponised for political gain.
I know how it feels to think of yourself as broken, to feel like society will never accept you, and to feel ashamed to admit to friends and family who you really are, and that things might be better if you just did not exist at all. Surely in 2025 we can do so much better and make sure that trans people are seen and valued for who they truly are.
To conclude, I urge the Minister to provide this House with an update on what steps he is taking to reassure the trans community that it will continue to receive protections and safe spaces following the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, which has left many trans people confused and anxious. When will this Government ban conversion therapy in full? We have heard it from the Minister again, but no specific timetable has been given for both sexuality and gender.
Ben Maguire
I invite the Minister to give way if he can tell us the timetable for that.
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Gentleman is giving way to me, but, yes, I said that it would be in this Session of Parliament, which is a pretty clear timeline.
Ben Maguire
I thank the Minister for the intervention, but that is rather vague considering that we have many years left of this Parliament.
Chris Bryant
I said it would be in this Session of Parliament, not this Parliament.
Ben Maguire
Moving on then, as that has answered my question—[Interruption.] Yes, it was an excellent answer.
What steps are the Government taking to reduce the time that LGBTQ+ veterans are having to wait for their financial redress applications? I look forward to hearing an update on that later on. Finally, what action are the Government taking to address disproportionate rates of mental ill health and homelessness among the LGBTQ+ community? The Minister referred to a review, which I believe is to be chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, but we really do need urgent action now.
Let’s celebrate Pride Month while remembering that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over. The Liberal Democrats will continue to lead it, and we will not stop until everyone is free to live as their true selves, without fear and without apology.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Picking up from what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) said about delays in the process of payments to those dismissed from the armed forces, that experience of delay has been raised with me by my constituent, Paul, who I thank for giving me permission to discuss his story today.
Paul loved music from an early age and, at 15, he auditioned to join the Army as a bandsman and passed with flying colours. Later that year, still not yet 16, he did his three-month basic Army training in Aberdeen. It was at that time that he realised he was gay, and his time in the Army became unnecessarily complex and stressful for him as he had to hide his true self.
In the summer of 1988, while rehearsing for the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, he was taken aside by the military police. Paul was arrested in front of the entire regimental band and the other bands on parade. He was taken to Edinburgh castle, where the special investigation branch interrogated him for hours. He did not know what to do, so he just denied everything. He was then imprisoned for a week. During that time, he was humiliated and called degrading names. He was hosed down instead of being allowed to wash, and made to do push-ups while a corporal pushed on his back so hard with his drill boots that blood seeped through Paul’s vest. His meals were spat on and defecated in, and when he refused to eat them, they were thrown at him. He was repeatedly asked intrusive, aggressive and detailed questions about his sexual activity. During his time in jail, he was allowed one phone call, which he used to call his mother, who told him to admit that he was gay. Under the sustained pressure from the interrogation and with the advice of his mother, he admitted he was gay and he was dismissed from the Army.
In 2017, Paul suffered a mental breakdown. His therapist believed that Paul’s Army experience and flashbacks contributed to that breakdown. Paul has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his Army experiences. We owe it to Paul and all the other LGBT+ veterans that applications for financial payments are processed as quickly as possible and with as little intrusion as possible.
My constituent and many other veterans are waiting for justice. I urge colleagues across the House to give their support to the Fighting With Pride campaign on this issue. In Armed Forces Week, let us remember the thousands of military personnel whose service was cut short by dismissal because of their sexuality. Finally, I call on the Government to redouble their efforts to rectify this historic injustice by delivering financial reparations in as timely and considerate a manner as possible.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am proud to speak in today’s debate on Pride Month; it is the first time I have done so. I also enjoy the distinction of being the first straight man to become a member of LGBT Conservatives, which involved a special resolution to approve my membership. Hopefully that will be the first and last constitutional conundrum for which I am responsible in my political career.
Today, I want to speak of my incredible pride that, more than 10 years ago, a Conservative coalition Government passed legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. Today, around 167,000 people are living in same-sex marriages, with all the happiness, challenges and life-enriching complexity that involves. I am proud of that because the Conservative party is the party of family, and the party of rights and duties, freedoms and responsibilities—the freedom for people to love whoever they choose, and the freedom to honour that love by making a lifelong commitment to another person, with all the responsibilities for mutual care, support and home building that entails.
Children enjoy the best outcomes when they are raised in stable, loving homes. While marriage is not always a guarantee of stability, it is a good indicator and supporter of it. Data from the UK longitudinal household survey shows that cohabiting parents were 3.4 times more likely to split up during any given one-year period compared with married parents, across income groups. The benefits of making a commitment and raising a family are not just for the children of those families. Taking on family responsibilities gives people meaning and purpose, making them more productive as they work to put the people they have taken responsibility for ahead of themselves.
In saying this, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the single parents and cohabiting couples, both same sex and heterosexual, who do a heroic job every day for their families. Quite frankly, as a married parent myself, I do not know how single parents manage it and I pay tribute to them. All parents should be acknowledged and appreciated for the daily acts of care and sacrifice that they make for their children—our future. Just because other models can and do work, we should not stop striving to support the institution of marriage as the foundational building block of our society. Society benefits from stable families where children can be supported to thrive and become citizens who contribute to not only their family lives, but their communities.
I am pleased and proud to belong to a party that championed the rights of same-sex marriage and brought it into law. Our laws and policies should incentivise commitment to family life for all couples, regardless of sexuality. I am proud that because of decisions in this place, so many people can marry the person they love today.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister—I had no idea that he was a practising vicar or that he liked musicals, so I have finally found that out.
I am proud to rise to contribute to this important and timely debate on Pride Month. I associate myself with comments made by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), and others from across different parties in this House to reflect on and celebrate the contributions of LGBT+ people throughout our history. The community is rich and contributes to every part of our society, from the sciences to the arts and from fashion, of course, to technology, media and often politics. We uphold the principle that a truly fair and open society is one in which everyone can thrive, regardless of who they are or who they love. That openness, creativity, innovation and justice are a part of our country—the very fabric of our country—and this month is a celebration of some of the key talent within it.
Every June, we come together to celebrate Pride Month. That has not come in a world without challenges and remembrance for those who have come before us. We have come a long way, but there is still a long way to go, especially as local councils in some areas are banning flags. Prides are being denied support across the country, and some elected representatives, many of whom sadly are not here, oppose equal marriages and come out with sometimes questionable remarks.
I believe that all of us are better when we celebrate each other’s successes, and I want to give special recognition to my local Medway Pride, run by Hilary Cooke, which has been a force for good in our local community and which has supported local businesses through its activities in securing thousands of people to visit Rochester castle. I will also contribute and celebrate the fact that local councils can do so much to improve our vibrant spaces, including our local Medway council.
Pride began as a protest, and that spirit of resistance still matters. I completely agree with colleagues that we need to continue to challenge whatever Government, be it my own Labour Government or a Government from across the aisle, on whether we will get trans conversion practices banned. I am really glad to hear and welcome the statement today that that is happening over the course of this Parliament.
Let us recommit as lawmakers, neighbours and allies not just in words, but in policy, investment and principle to building a country where every person feels seen, safe and supported—a country where love is never criminalised, identity is never erased and no one is ever made to feel ashamed about who they are. Happy Pride, Medway, and happy Pride, Parliament.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I will be brief, given the time limit that has been set. I must say I was slightly disappointed that there were not more musical numbers and puns from the Minister in his speech at the start—I am sure we will get some later.
I am really proud to represent Harrogate and Knaresborough. At the moment, Knaresborough High Street is adorned with flags celebrating Pride, and I know that our towns are incredibly tolerant and open places. Earlier this year, we had a particular incident with a candidate from the Conservatives standing in the local elections who posted really quite grim and disgusting tweets. I am really pleased that our towns rejected that at the ballot box. Harrogate used to have a Pride parade, but it stopped when the pandemic came along. I really hope that me and the Harrogate Pride organisation can get that up and running in due course.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I did not plan on intervening, but we had a hustings during the election, and one of the questions was about the upcoming Sherborne Pride. Unfortunately, I was amazed that even in this day and age there was not unanimous support for a Sherborne Pride. My first act as an MP was to go to the inaugural Sherborne Pride, and we have the second one coming up in a couple of weeks. Does my hon. Friend believe that the importance of Pride is showing inclusion for everybody?
Tom Gordon
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I completely agree with him. I am amazed that in this day and age, there are still places in which we dispute whether or not we should fly flags or have Pride celebrations. In my view, that is not British.
I want to briefly mention that in the days following the Supreme Court ruling, I had a trans constituent come into my office. She impressed upon me that her situation had fundamentally changed: she was worried about her rights, about being challenged in toilets, and that the Supreme Court’s decision ushered in a new era of uncertainty for trans people. I put on the record my support for the trans community, as Members from across this House who are present in the Chamber today have already done. However, we are in uncertain times, and it is incumbent on us all to make sure we stand up for the entire LGBT community. While I, too, was disappointed that political parties were banned from attending Pride in many cities this year, I understand why organisers have come to that conclusion. It is incumbent on all political parties to do better, and if we are honest, all parties have issues when it comes to LGBT rights. We should all try to make sure that we do much better.
As the Minister said, coming out is not a one-off event. I was fortunate enough that when I was at school, I never got bullied—my friend James might have punched anyone if they had taken issue with it.
Tom Gordon
We are not in favour of it, no, but it does help to have the rugby boys on your side. One comment was made after I actually did come out in the last year of high school. I can remember someone chuntering from the back of the classroom, going, “Oh, Tom’s gay!” I turned around and went, “Yes, and?” That was the end of it, so even in an ex-mining town such as the one I am originally from, people are much more tolerant than you would perhaps expect.
A disproportionate number of people who are LGBT are still impacted by hate crime, which is something that worries me in light of the hostility and, in particular, the rhetoric online. The most online abuse I have received has been when I have spoken up for trans constituents, which I am sure is an experience that many people across this House share. That is a damning reflection of how people seek to whip up hate and divide people, when we should be looking to come together.
The final thing I wanted to do was to plug the charity of the constituent who came to me to speak about being a trans woman. I had not heard of it before, but it is called Nutshell, and it offers talking therapies and counselling—not for trans people themselves, but for the families of trans people, who can often feel particular frustrations with finding out that one of their loved ones is trans. It is a holistic approach, and I endorse what that charity does.
I think I came out in this place in my maiden speech when I mentioned Eurovision. I will continue our campaign to make sure we get Eurovision back in Harrogate, and I hope the Minister will join me in that campaign.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I rise with personal pride as Macclesfield’s first openly gay Member of Parliament, and with real pride at how far Macclesfield and the country have come over the years. I grew up in the Macclesfield constituency, and if anyone had told me back then that we would have our own Pride, I would never have believed them. People lining the streets in celebration and solidarity is a wonderful thing to see, and I know Members across the House have the same experience in their area. It is joyful and defiant, but as the Minister and others have said, it is also political. It is a protest as much as it is a party—a refusal to accept that anyone should be ashamed of who they are.
That matters because, as Members have said—or, I am sure, will say—we have seen a shocking rise in homophobic and transphobic hate crimes over past years. That is why I was proud to support the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), to make those hate crimes aggravated offences treated with the seriousness they deserve. Hate has no place on our streets, in our schools or in our politics, but we have seen that hate even in Macclesfield. Just recently, anti-LGBT posters appeared around the town—nasty, cowardly attempts to intimidate and divide—but just as quickly as they went up, they were taken down. They were taken down by neighbours, by volunteers, and by people who simply refused to let that kind of poison define our community. In their place came messages of love, solidarity and inclusion. That is the Macclesfield I know and am incredibly proud to represent.
We cannot ignore the wider context. The UK has dropped dramatically in the ILGA-Europe rankings for LGBT+ rights, which is a signal that we are no longer the standard bearer we once were. The recent Supreme Court decision has created confusion and concern among the trans community. People are left asking what rights they can rely on and whether the protections they thought they had still apply. That uncertainty feeds fear, and fear is something that no one should have to live with simply because of who they are. We must all redouble our efforts to uphold equality in law and in life. I welcome the statement earlier about trans conversion practices and the ban on it coming soon.
Progress is not permanent; it has to be protected, nurtured and renewed. The same is true with equality. When we stop fighting for it, we risk losing it. These can be difficult times, but I am an optimist and I remain hopeful, because I have seen the resilience of our community. I have seen it in Macclesfield with the rainbow flags flying from shop windows, and I know that people across this House will stand with the LGBT+ community to say loudly and clearly that nobody should be made to feel afraid, ashamed or excluded because of who they are or who they love.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Happy Pride to everyone in Aberdeen, in Scotland and in every part of these islands. The world is a pretty scary place right now in a huge number of ways. As the Minister said, LGBT people are normal just like the rest of us, and they are similarly feeling scared about the state of the world, not least in the wake of the Supreme Court decision and the impact that is having on trans people. The Minister said:
“Our hard-won freedoms are never won in perpetuity”,
and it is the case that trans people’s rights—their right to a private life, and their right to human rights—have been rolled back as a result of this reinterpretation of the Equality Act 2010. People are less able to live their lives with the freedom they should be able to have, and the Government need to do something about that.
People keep using the word “clarity” about the EHRC guidance, but there is no way that it provides that. It requires trans people regularly to out themselves. They may still have protection on the basis of gender reassignment, but trans women no longer have protection as women as a result of this reinterpretation of the Equality Act, and that is not the way it should be. All I can say to my trans constituents and people across the United Kingdom is that I am sorry; we need to get this sorted and we need to keep fighting.
On the decision taken by a number of Pride organisations, we have no entitlement to be there. There is no entitlement for political parties to be allowed to take part in Pride. For all that that we have done great things 50 years ago, 25 years ago, five years ago or two years ago—for example, there were the changes with the recourse provided to LGBT veterans—that does not mean that we should not be held to account for our lack of action, for failing to protect trans people properly or for the increase in hate crimes that we are seeing. It is absolutely right that Pride organisations should be able to use their voice to say to every one of us in this House, “You are not doing good enough. You need to do better. We need you to do more in order to protect the community.” If that is the way they choose to use their voice, they should absolutely go for it.
I took part in our Pride in Aberdeen, as I have done on many occasions, including the first one 25 years ago. I marched with the crowd, as I always do in the Pride parade—not with Out for Independence, but with all the people I represent. It is the case that every one of us in this place needs to do better. We need to improve lives for our trans constituents. We need to fight this rolling back of rights, because people are terrified, and they are right to be pretty scared right now.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Today we raise a toast to Pride, and in so doing, we raise a toast to nothing less than life. We also recommit to liberation—the liberation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people. There is a particular quotation that I like, which is this:
“Queerness is essentially about the rejection of a here and now and an insistence on potentiality…for another world.”
José Muñoz wrote that, and right now we should be insisting on that new world harder than ever.
When Pride is about liberation, it is not merely about the liberation of LGBT+ people; it is about the liberation of all. Although Pride is primarily of, by and for the people who dance under the same rainbow, it is also about liberation from prejudice. When LGBT+ people are safe, society is safe.
My life as a gay man was enhanced by the last Labour Government sweeping away the 1980s and early 1990s—the discriminatory legislation that fostered a hostile environment for LGBT+ people—but that progress has stalled. The introduction of equal marriage feels a very long time ago. Right now, in this place, we must pass the laws that LGBT+ people are demanding and that they need, so that no one is punished for being who they are or harmed for loving who they love.
We know the harms of inaction, and we know the harms of a slowness to act. Even if people are not physically attacked or verbally insulted—but they will be—younger people may grow up with the feeling that they are unworthy of love. They may grow up with the expectation never to love, nor to trust it when it appears. They may grow up without the ability to form relationships. As ever, 1980s pop music says it best:
“When I look back upon my life
It’s always with a sense of shame
I’ve always been the one to blame
For everything I long to do
No matter when or where or who
Has one thing in common too
It’s a sin.”
That speaks so beautifully about the ugliness of the shame that LGBT+ people are made to feel.
I commend our Government for taking significant steps to support LGBT+ veterans, and for announcing that they would make strands of hate crime targeted at disabled and LGBT+ people an aggravated offence. I was proud to sponsor an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), and I was pleased to hear the Minister speak about the progress of our Government in implementing our manifesto commitment to bring forward a truly trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban and to modernise, simplify and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law and introduce a new process.
I only have a few seconds left, so I will close by saying this: let this Pride month be the spur that drives us on, not in another decade but in the rest of this decade, and not in another Parliament but in what I hope will be the first moments of a new, progressive Parliament.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Let me start by wishing a happy Pride Month to members of the LGBT+ community on Ynys Môn and beyond.
Pride Month is, of course, a time for celebration, a time to reflect on the vital contributions of members of the LGBTQ+ community to our society, and a time to renew our conviction that everyone deserves to love and live freely and openly, without the threat of bigotry. But this Pride Month is also a time of deep unease for many members of the community; in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex and gender in the Equality Act 2010 and the ensuing interim guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, many trans people are living in fear of what the future holds.
The words of the trailblazing Welsh trans author Jan Morris seem particularly pertinent today. She found fame in 1953 as the sole reporter on the successful British Everest expedition, and became a prolific historian and travel writer. In her groundbreaking 1974 autobiography, she wrote:
“I never did think that my own conundrum was a matter either of science or of social convention...What was important was the liberty of us all to live as we wished to live, to love however we wanted to love, and to know ourselves, however peculiar, disconcerting or unclassifiable, at one with the gods and angels.”
It is, of course, in this place that many of the landmark decisions on allowing people to live and love freely have taken place, but work remains to create a society that is fairer and more inclusive for all. One of my constituents is an LGBTQ+ veteran, discharged from the military owing to his sexuality—before 2000, when the ban on open service of LGBTQ+ people was lifted. The late Lord Etherton reported on a number of recommendations in 2023 to provide redress for the injustice, but shockingly, in response to more than 1,000 applications, only 24 payments had been made as at 21 May this year. I urge the Government to do all they can to expedite the process, and to apologise formally for this historic wrong.
This month we rightly reflect on the huge strides forward that have made our society a more open and inclusive place for the LGBTQ+ community, but as the injustices facing the trans community and LGBT veterans demonstrate, we must redouble our efforts to build a society in which everyone has the liberty to live as they wish. Let us all recommit ourselves to that work together.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I draw Members to my declarations of interest.
As many of us know, the Pride movement started with the Stonewall riots in 1969, but some people now see Pride as a party. It certainly did not start that way, and for many of us it is still a protest and will continue to be so until we genuinely do not need Pride anymore. My Pride journey started as a bystander, until I became a councillor in 2018, when somebody decided to post literature all around the town of Basildon, telling the LGBT community to repent. Instead of getting angry, we organised Basildon mini-Pride within two weeks and showed that we were here to stay. It turned into a full-on Pride that is still going strong, with a programme of events throughout the year as part of the Basildon Pride Everyday programme. I am proud to still be chair of trustees for that Pride, and thank all its members and the volunteers who contribute to its work.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
May I celebrate my wonderful hon. Friend for his role in founding Basildon Pride? Will he join me in commending York Pride and its 17,000 visitors for celebrating the wonderful LGBTQ+ community that we have in York? Will he also join me in condemning any abuse, harassment or intimidation—at any Pride event—that is driven by who someone is, who they love or what they believe?
David Burton-Sampson
Absolutely. I celebrate York Pride, and I thank its organisers for what they contribute. We stand up against discrimination at Pride events and outside; it is unacceptable.
I have to mention my team at Southend Pride, which came into being the year before Basildon Pride. They, too, put on an annual festival and events throughout the year, including a winter Pride. I try to work closely with Southend Pride, and today I recommit my dedication to supporting it and the LGBTQ+ community in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea. I thank the whole team for their dedication: Cath, Sam, Louis, Yvonne, Amber and everyone else involved.
We have to face some uncomfortable truths. Prides around the country are folding and cancelling this year, and many are struggling to get the funding that they usually have, from big events like Liverpool Pride to those in Southampton and Plymouth. The challenges around diversity, equity and inclusion, and the changing attitudes of companies—especially those with American parents—do not help. The attitude that “Prides are no longer needed, because it’s all sorted” also does not help. I can tell the House that Prides are needed now more than ever. Personally, I know that I am not equal: I cannot comfortably walk along the street holding my partner’s hand or giving my partner a kiss. In the best case, I will get stares; in the worst case, I will get verbal or physical abuse. That is a fact—it is how it is today—so I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) has brought forward measures to make LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence.
We have heard all about the impact that the Supreme Court ruling has had on trans people, who need our allyship more than ever. They need guidance issued that truly supports the fact that they, too, are covered by the protections in the Equality Act 2010. In recent years I have been working closely with an organisation called TransLucent, whose chief executive officer, Steph, is in the Gallery today. It is a great organisation that positively advocates for the trans community, and it is trying to take the heat out of the debate and make sure that trans people are looked after and respected.
I will continue to stand as a trans ally, and I know many of my Labour colleagues will, too. I encourage Prides across the movement to keep engaging with us and challenging us, but do not shut us out. Challenge us, and we are here to help. They have our commitment that we will make sure that trans people and the LGBTQ+ community are going to be treated as equals in this country.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
As a straight man, I cannot speak from personal experience about the prejudice that LGBTQIA+ people have been the victim of, nor have I been a coalminer and experienced the feeling of having the source of my livelihood snatched away. However, in this Pride Month debate, I wish to share with the House a collaboration that emphasises the importance of allyship and—something this House does not hear nearly enough about—class solidarity.
This collaboration was between the London-based activist group Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and the mining community of the Dulais valley in south Wales during the miners’ strike of 1984 to 1985. Co-founders of the LGSM, Mark Ashton and Mike Jackson, were inspired to combine gay rights activism with the labour movement after attending a talk by a striking miner. This duo brought collection buckets to the London Lesbian and Gay Pride march in June 1984 to support the miners and their families who were affected by the financial hardship caused by the strike.
The LGSM was subsequently set up to officially declare that members of the gay rights movement supported the striking miners, because the LGSM strongly believed that solidarity between the working classes was essential, as all of them would be suppressed if the Thatcher Government succeeded in weakening the National Union of Mineworkers and the wider trade union movement. Indeed, the miners and the LGSM shared very similar experiences and common ground, as both were targeted and vilified by a right-wing media, police brutality and the Government of the day. Attitudes towards the gay community soon began to change in the mining community. The LGSM visited south Wales, with the mining communities reciprocating the solidarity and friendship shown to them by the LGSM.
Chris Bryant
I just want to correct one thing in the film “Pride”, which is the plot my hon. Friend is referring to. The south Wales valley mining community—I represent the Rhondda and Ogmore—is portrayed as openly hostile to the lesbians and gays and, in fact, bisexuals who came down to support their cause. That was far from true; there was almost unanimous support for them.
Brian Leishman
I very much thank the Minister for that correction—I appreciate the intervention—and for subtly dropping in my mispronunciation of south Wales.
By the end of the strike, the LGSM had raised over £20,000. As the Welsh mining communities had made the Londoners feel so welcome, the LGSM organised a return visit, with a fundraiser called “Pits and Perverts” held at the Electric Ballroom in Camden. Despite the defeat of the mining industry, south Wales miners and their families marched alongside the LGSM at a Pride march in London the following year. At the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, this allyship was much needed. On 11 February 1987, LGSM founder Mark Ashton died of an AIDS-related illness, and his funeral was attended by many of the miners whom he had supported through the LGSM.
In a wider context, the NUM acknowledged the support shown by the gay community during the strike when the union called for gay equality at the 1985 Labour party conference and Trades Union Congress. In addition, the NUM backed the campaign against the hateful and harmful section 28, which was passed in 1988 by the Conservative Government. Altogether, the collaboration of those in the gay rights movement and the labour movement highlights the shared struggle and solidarity across communities bounded by oppressions and class interests.
Our labour movement must therefore show unwavering support to those in the LGBTQIA+ community, many of whom will march this summer to demand equality and protest against the rise in homophobia and transphobia. As the gays and lesbians and the miners showed in the 1980s, when two very different communities come under attack from prejudice and form an unlikely alliance to fight for what is right in the face of persecution, then understanding, kindness, respect and solidarity happen, and those emotions always win.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In 1986, I went to my first ever Pride. It is hard to believe, but that was nearly 40 years ago. I remember being struck by how much of a celebration and a protest it was. I remember how important it was to be visible. I felt proud of who I was for the first time. I hope people feel that this year when they attend their first Pride event. I could not have predicted what was to happen just two years later.
In 1988, section 28 was enacted. That year, I attended Pride alongside many angry and distraught friends. I remember section 28 vividly. It was more than a law: it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people. It pushed us out of public life. I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented. The 1988 Pride was a protest. It was a reminder that LGBT people have always and will always exist, and we deserve to live our lives publicly and with dignity. My friends and I walked down the streets of London and made sure we were heard. We refused to be silent.
This Labour Government have pledged to ban conversion therapy. Last week in the House, I encouraged the Government to fulfil their manifesto commitment. I made the case for aggravated offences to be treated the same for all people, regardless of what kind of hate it is. All hate should be treated the same. I was proud to see our Government reaffirm that that would be the case. Britain is a country that will not tolerate hate. All hatred is equal and all those who commit vile acts of hatred will face the same grave consequences.
Today, I am concerned that the progress made by previous Labour Governments has been eroded. We are seeing rising transphobia everywhere and I, for one, will not stand for it. Pride flags are being taken down at county halls, and only last year an advertisement for my local Pride on social media was met with the response, “Gas the lot of them.” It is a reminder to all of us this Pride Month that we must stand together with trans people and reject transphobia with the same anger and passion that we rejected homophobia all those years ago. I will continue to stand proudly with all members of the LGBT community and our allies this Pride Month as we celebrate and protest.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
In the words of the organisation Stonewall:
“Pride Month 2025 is grounded in this year’s powerful theme, activism and social change. It’s a reminder of how far the LGBTQI+ community has come and how much work still needs to be done.”
I would like to thank Stonewall, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance and Rainbow Migration for their vital work, which I have relied on in understanding the challenging issues facing the LGBT+ community. Rainbow Migration in particular supports LGBT+ people through the asylum and immigration system. Its work is pivotal to a number of constituents of mine who have fled their country and identify as LGBT+. They are seeking support in the UK, where they can feel like their true selves.
Rainbow Migration has asked Home Office Ministers to remove blanket inadmissibility provisions for so-called “safe states” such as Albania, Georgia and India. For example, Noah, a gay Georgian and former service user of Rainbow Migration, had the following lived experience of a “safe state”. Noah fled homophobic persecution in Georgia. He was extremely fearful of being sent back there, saying that he would rather take his own life than go back and face persecution. He said:
“No one can know that you are gay in Georgia. If people do, homophobic people will try to attack you. Either with words, or they’ll try to beat you.”
Noah was physically attacked by family members. He was forced to stay in a hospital for people with mental health issues and had an exorcism performed on him at church. Thankfully, he was granted refugee status due to the risk of harm, but he is deeply concerned about Georgia’s designation as safe. He says:
“Georgia cannot be considered a safe country. They don’t know what is going on in Georgia—how the LGBT people are living there. They cannot understand. The last time that Pride took place, the television operator was killed. Who will come and say Georgia is a safe country after that? If you’re gay, your two options are either hospital or exorcism.”
How can we in this country describe Georgia as safe for LGBT people?
In 1997, under the last Labour Government, the first positive recognition of same-sex relationships in UK law was introduced for migrants. The unmarried partners concession made it possible for same-sex couples to make an application for a partner of a British citizen to remain in the UK if they had lived together for four years. It paved the way for greater legislative equality for same-sex couples, and it was the first time same-sex relationships were recognised positively in British law.
Being an ally is about reflecting on how to contribute to lasting social change and acting on that reflection, so I agree with Rainbow Migration in calling for an asylum and immigration system that treats LGBT people with dignity.
Unfortunately, the UK’s current legal framework for dealing with inequality and discrimination is creaking under the weight of the culture wars. Legislation such as the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, which were designed to protect the most marginal and vulnerable in society, have been weaponised by those who seek to promote exclusion and social division, with this year’s Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent guidance by the EHRC causing widespread fear among the trans community.
At a time of rising discrimination, the UK should reassert its commitment to the value of equality, instead of creating a set of contested rights that dehumanise the most marginalised. It can do this in a powerful way by signing and ratifying protocol 12 to the European convention on human rights, which creates a general prohibition on discrimination. The UK is one of only nine countries in the Council of Europe not to have signed protocol 12. Everyone in the UK would benefit from access to the human right of the general prohibition on discrimination, including LGBTQI+ people.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
I will start by answering the question that is so often asked, first under the breath, and then in the dark corners of the internet, and now, in some places, in the unfortunate mainstream: why do we have Pride? Why do we need Pride? The answer is that for far too many people, even in the Britain of 2025—one of the greatest places in the world to be LGBT, I believe—being yourself and being who you are feels like a trial and a struggle, and it is just not good enough. We need it because too many LGBT people are attacked, abused or dismissed because of their sexuality, and because even in our free country, too many LGBT people have to constantly check that they are not behaving in too gay a fashion in order to avoid inciting anyone or giving too much away for their own safety, or even due to fears of being othered. We need it because too many LGBT people are homeless and too many LGBT adults are experiencing mental health conditions or suffering from drug or alcohol abuse or poverty as a result of their sexuality. It looks like a parade and a party on the street, but Pride is about acknowledging that struggle—the struggle for respect and equality, and to breathe as freely as everyone else.
The history of Pride is always a reminder that so many have come before us, and that they endured not just the harassment, but, in this country, the criminalisation, the chemical castration, the shaming, the ostracisation, the bullying and names and the punching and spitting—as I was spat at once, on Manchester’s Canal Street. It is a reminder of those who were killed or not cared for during the AIDS epidemic—those who were left to die, considered diseased or crazed. It is on those brave shoulders that openly gay LGB and T people like me stand in 2025. I will say now that transgender people deserve our respect and support, and that I believe in LGB with the T.
Sure, we have come a long way. Some places let people marry who they love, and lots more folks understand the beautiful umbrella that exists within our community. However, the truth is that it is not the same everywhere, and it can change fast, as the Minister said. There are still many countries where someone being who they are can land them in jail or condemn them to death.
Even here in the UK, both the Conservative candidate for my constituency and I had our sexuality paraded around, commented on and weaponised by other candidates at last year’s election, as if it were a slight on our character. I said to my now constituents at the election, “I am who I am. Dislike me for my politics and my opinions, but do not disengage because of who I love. By the way, as much as I am going door to door, I’m not trying to convert anyone, although we are a very broad church.” I am proud that in all the communities in my constituency, respect and tolerance found more of a home than hate. I say to my constituents in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, from all creeds and castes, I am here to represent you as much as anyone else.
Tim Roca
My hon. Friend has worked very hard on the issue of compensation for LGBT veterans because of the disgraceful way they were treated by the British state, which has been raised at various points this evening. I wonder whether he would comment more on that and on Lord Etherton’s landmark report.
Oliver Ryan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I absolutely will. One of the first experiences I had as an MP was being approached by a constituent, Steven, whom I had not met during the election campaign, and who has now received compensation for his disgraceful treatment when he was a member of the armed forces. I met Lord Etherton during that time and we had an Adjournment debate. It was a much longer story, and I came in right at the end of it, as so many MPs do, but I was proud to have met him and experienced the work he had put into representing those men and women who had served our country so valiantly and had been so harshly let down.
This month is the chance for us to be with our people—the people who accept us, who welcome us and who care. Wearing a lanyard is not a political statement; it is a statement of respect. Raising a rainbow flag on a building is not a political statement—
Rachel Taylor
I just want to say how proud I am that my hon. Friend is here in this Chamber as an LGBT MP. Does he share my pride in everyone who is here taking part in the debate this evening?
Oliver Ryan
Absolutely. I am so proud of my hon. Friend and everybody else who has contributed to the debate, whether LGBT or an ally. I stand here as an openly gay man, but allies have talked about films—“Pride” and things—that they have seen. It is important for us all to be here and to recognise Pride, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
Wearing a lanyard or putting a flag on a building is not a political statement; it is a sign of respect. Saying that you are an ally or that you just plain do not care either way, but you support people to live how they want to live, is not a political statement; it is a statement of respect. Respect is what we should be about in this country. It is a very British thing, whatever our side or our politics, and I quite like that about the country that we live in.
Life is more than black and white; it is filled with wonderful colours. Above all, there is something quite powerful in saying, “This is me and I am proud of it.” That joy pushes back against all the shame and silence that we have faced over the years, and that we still face now. As long as anyone feels the need to hide who they are, this month will be needed. Happy Pride month to people in the Chamber and people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I had not intended to say what I am about to say, before the bit that I did intend to say, but, inspired by the Minister’s comment that coming out matters, I thought I would use this very public forum to say that I am a bisexual woman. Some people know; some do not. I do not wear it like a badge any more than I would expect a heterosexual person to walk around saying, “Hey, guess what, I’m attracted to men”—or women, depending what gender they are, or otherwise.
The reason that I feel compelled to mention that publicly, before I get on to the good bit of my speech—please, somebody, intervene on me—is that I held back on showing my support for the LGBTQ+ community on my Facebook page for fear of retribution ahead of the local elections, when a certain party got into power at Derbyshire county council. Trying to appease that kind of support did not win any votes, so after that happened, I doubled down on what I believe in and who I am. I posted in support of the Day Against Transphobia, Biphobia and Homophobia, and I said, “If you dare make a negative comment, or anything alluding to one, such as, ‘What is a woman?’, you will be blocked from my page, because there’s falling on the right side of history and there’s falling on the wrong side of history, and you are wrong.”
Kirsty Blackman
I congratulate the hon. Member on taking this opportunity to say what she has said. It is not easy to say something like that in a Chamber like this. Having done something similar not that long ago, I absolutely respect her, and I join her in celebrating Pride month.
Samantha Niblett
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention—and for giving me an extra minute, in which I would like to talk about my community.
I have one main hope about saying what I have just said and being openly bisexual. My daughter is so straight—it is so disappointing—[Laughter.] But if there are girls and women in South Derbyshire and across the country who think, “Oh God, it is okay to love a woman, to kiss a woman, to be intimate with a woman—and she’s said it, so it’s okay that I do,” then good. I say to them: take that comfort, and if you want to talk to me about it, please feel free to reach out.
Now I am going to talk about my constituency. It is an honour to speak in this important debate on Pride, not just as the Member of Parliament for South Derbyshire but as someone who has seen at first hand the power of community when it chooses inclusion over exclusion and love over fear. This past Saturday, I had the privilege of attending a truly fantastic Pride event at the Collective Hub in Swadlincote. The Collective Hub is a brilliant community space that fosters creativity, belonging and support for people of all ages. The Pride celebration it hosted was testament to everything that makes our community proud: diversity, resilience and joy. I want to pay particular tribute to Mikey, who leads the hub with passion, care and unwavering dedication. His work does not go unnoticed. He and all those who supported the event created a safe and welcoming space.
Tom Gordon
On the point the hon. Lady makes about her constituents, the length and breadth of this country is filled by people who do their bit and go above and beyond. Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating the people in my constituency who do exactly that?
Samantha Niblett
I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking the people in his constituency who do the same.
Mikey’s work does not go unnoticed. He and all those who supported the event created a safe, welcoming space for LGBTQ+ people in South Derbyshire to be visible, celebrated and, perhaps most importantly, to be themselves.
Amid the colour and celebration, we must recognise a deeper undercurrent of concern, particularly among our transgender constituents. I have heard directly from individuals who are frightened about the tone of national conversations surrounding their rights, safety and dignity. These are not abstract issues; these are people in our towns and villages—our neighbours, friends and family members. They deserve the same rights, respect and freedoms as anyone else.
David Burton-Sampson
I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying; these are normal people in our communities. Does she agree that it is really important that we are allies of these people and that we stand with them?
Samantha Niblett
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that allyship is important. I am the proud mum to a very disappointingly straight daughter, and she is a brilliant ally. I hope that the next generation will continue to be exactly like that and will create the atmosphere that is needed to support those who we stand side-by-side with.
In South Derbyshire, I believe the message is clear: we want inclusion, not exclusion. We want a society where someone being themselves is not a political act but simply a human one. Pride is not just about celebration; it is about commitment—commitment to equality, justice and standing up for those whose voices have too often been marginalised.
Let us remember that Pride began as a protest. It is a reminder that the freedoms we now celebrate were hard-won and must be protected, not rolled back. In the face of rising hostility and misinformation, we in this House have a duty to lead with compassion and courage. To the LGBTQ+ community in South Derbyshire, we see you, we hear you, and we stand with you.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in celebration of Pride Month and to have listened to all hon. Members. I want to recognise the outstanding contributions of individuals and organisations in Portsmouth North who work tirelessly to support our LGBT+ community and who worked hard to ensure that we had a UK Pride this year. I thank the dedicated team at Pompey Pride, whose vibrant events and year-round advocacy promote inclusivity and visibility; the incredible support provided by the Portsmouth LGBT+ community forum; TransLucent, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) has already praised; the YOU Trust, which offers specialist help to LGBT people facing homelessness or domestic abuse; and the fantastic Fight with Pride, a military charity leading a great campaign.
Our city should stand proud of our LGBT community, as I stand in this place a proud ally of them. Schools and institutions such as the University of Portsmouth and Portsmouth college proudly continue to foster inclusivity, and local businesses, trade unions and the city council are demonstrating leadership by championing equality in the workplace. Pride is not just a celebration but a commitment to dignity, respect and human rights, which in a sometimes hostile world we must continue to push for all.
I am proud of the actions of this Government and other Governments, both historically and currently. I am proud of the changes to bring about the equal age of consent, the repeal of section 28, the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the commitment to banning conversion therapy and strengthening hate crime protections, and the commitment to implementing Lord Etherton’s report.
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their combined and positive words in speaking up on behalf of our trans community, who are at this moment feeling very fragile and facing a very difficult world. I commend and want to thank all in Portsmouth North who through their actions are seeking to make our city of Portsmouth more open, compassionate, equal and a beautiful place for all to live. When we think about Pride and the need to still have Pride in 2025 in the UK, we must remember that love should not be a limitation but our greatest freedom, because in embracing who we are, we help the world become more authentic and more compassionate. In a world where this is not always possible, we must all continue to stand together, speak up and speak out until we are all truly free to love who we want.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I thank the many hon. Members in the Chamber for their swift and heartfelt contributions; everybody contributed brilliantly. I also wish everyone a very happy Pride Month, including my constituents in East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages.
The ethos of the Conservatives is exactly about meaningful change and putting the individual at the centre of policymaking. It is the Conservative party that is about freedom to be who you are. We are here to campaign for you and to support you, for a better future for you and everyone. As we have heard this evening, it is about respect, love and care for all that matters.
I have quoted before—this has stuck with me—the words of my friend and former colleague Elliot Colburn. In a previous debate, he said:
“LGBT+ people have always existed; we did not just pop out of the ground in the 1960s and 1970s and start marching through the streets of London and other cities.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 393WH.]
His and Jed’s wedding is back in my diary. They have much to do to top what was a great engagement night.
The changes that we have heard about across the globe, including in Thailand and India, are absolutely welcome. It is just as vital that we have righted the wrongs done to our service personnel. On Saturday, I will be in East Grinstead for an Armed Forces Day event with constituents and thinking of those who have told and shared with me their terrible, abhorrent experiences in the forces, like some of those bravely retold this evening. I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the fantastic contribution made by Fighting with Pride.
We have heard about families coming in all shapes and sizes and how important that is. In 2022, the Conservative Government rightly and vitally removed the barriers to IVF for lesbian couples, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). He also talked about the importance of family life for all couples. It is vital to recognise that parents and families come in different shapes and forms, including single parents. I have always loved to highlight that single parents can do this job.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) talked about the importance of local Pride campaigns. That point was echoed across the Chamber—I could not keep up—about campaigns in York, Basildon and Southend, and a winter Pride event where it sounds like there would be far too many clothes! I very much enjoyed the geography lesson on where to go.
It was also important to reflect on politicians, what we do and how we have made a difference. The Minister of State reminded us that there is always more to do and that we should take nothing for granted.
Tom Gordon
We have had a lovely, light-hearted debate for the most part. Does the hon. Lady agree that leaders of political parties have power through their words? Would she push for her party in particular to ensure that, when it comes to LGBT rights, we consider the humanity that we are talking about and do not whip up hate?
Mims Davies
I think that hon. Members heard from the Conservative Front Bench a young man from Anglesey—my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—speaking very much about what the challenges were for him living in an isolated, rural area, just as we heard from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi). It is right that we should put safety, dignity and the freedom to live your life at the heart of everything we do. My right hon. Friend was right that we are all leaders in our own ways. That is why I am so proud that we Conservatives set the ambitious and absolutely right goal of ending all new HIV cases by 2030. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry put that challenge to the Front-Bench team for this Parliament. Perhaps if the Minister’s party had not been quite so successful at the election, we would have even more of my gay and lesbian colleagues left on my Benches to keep championing that cause.
Rachel Taylor
It is unfortunate that there are not more Conservative Members here this evening taking part in this debate. That speaks volumes. I welcome the hon. Lady’s warm words and the warm words of her colleague in his opening remarks, but those words will sound hollow unless they start challenging their leader to do what is right for LGBT people up and down this country.
Mims Davies
I think the same goes for all parties. Obviously, MPs’ diaries have different challenges and commitments. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry made it—he was stuck on a train for most of this evening. He mentioned that we do not want Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland to fall behind when it comes to striving for no new cases of HIV by 2030 in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I am delighted to be deejaying at the LGBT Tories event at the Conservative party conference. As we have heard, the conferences can come alive, apparently. The Deputy Speaker earlier pointed out he had not recently been to a Labour one. Maybe he will come to my DJ night. I will be following the guest turn from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), and hoping that some of my colleagues, such as Chris Clarkson, formerly of this parish, will be there. I also want to pay tribute to Luke Robert Black, who got his MBE in December 2024 for his work with LGBT Conservatives. As we heard tonight, it is 50 years since both Labour and the Conservatives started those really important groups.
Oliver Ryan
There has been quite a nice cross-party feeling to the debate tonight, and that has been encouraging. There has also been some mention of trailblazers. I realise this is probably a little bit embarrassing for those on our Front Bench, but the Minister who opened the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), has been through quite a lot and written quite extensively about the role of LGBT people in public life, about the role of Parliament and about his own role as a Minister and an MP. Will the shadow Minister join me in praising him as one of those trailblazers in this place?
Mims Davies
I am always happy to praise the hon. Gentleman. The last time we had a chat he called me a very rude woman, so I have some making up to do—I hope that is exactly what he is pleased about. Of course, it is really important to have trailblazers, and as we have heard, being an ally is absolutely vital. I was going to mention the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) showcasing just how much that matters.
I must also mention my former colleague, Maria Caulfield, now CBE. Her passion and commitment to better HIV treatment and her focus on tackling the stigma around HIV and mental health were really important. I also want to mention the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who spoke up about being openly bisexual and proud of it. That will help others who watch this debate in relation to being out and being who they are. I too have daughters who are not as diverse as I was hoping for, but we live in hope. It is me that is the challenge, not them.
This debate shows exactly why we need Pride Month and why we need to make it count. We need the humour and humanity. Pride Month emphasises reflection on all the contributions, both historically and now, that LGBT+ individuals and communities make towards creating a better world, and we as politicians in this House can continue to be part of this story and help all LGBT people to thrive, not just in their sexuality but in every part of their life—their community, their career and whatever they want life to look like.
I thank all Members for their contributions and hope that we can work together actively and positively across the Chamber to continue to make positive changes for LGBT people. Of course, as we reflect on Pride and its theme of activism and social change, we must continue to challenge stigma, including views in my own party, and prejudice. We need to be clear that all political parties are here for you no matter who you are, where you live and who you love, and that you should never feel unsafe or worried about who you are. We will always work together to strive for dignity, inclusion and compassion. After all, love is love.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I hope the House will forgive me if I do not have time to mention everybody, because we have had such a wide-ranging debate with so many people taking part. I thank Members from across the House for their heartfelt and thoughtful contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for coming out in the Chamber about her sexuality, which is a difficult and emotional thing to do.
The tone of the debate was very much one of celebration. Members said how they perhaps never would have expected to have the celebrations in their home towns, like in Macclesfield, that they see now. Members celebrated political achievements and noted the 50th anniversary of both the Conservative and Labour LGBT+ societies. We celebrated that progress has been made, but the real tone was that we have to renew our efforts and that we cannot be complacent or let any backsliding happen.
Pride Month is a time not only for celebration but for reflection. Today we have heard stories of struggle, progress and hope. This debate has reminded us that LGBT+ equality is not a single milestone to be passed, but an ongoing commitment—one that must be renewed and reinforced by each generation. It has underscored the principle that has guided this Government from day one: every person, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity, deserves dignity, safety and respect.
I will now address some of the serious issues that Members have raised. The Opposition spokesman who opened the debate and former Equalities Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), asked in particular about the HIV prevention programme. I can tell him—if he were here—and hon. Members that only last week I was at the Terrence Higgins Trust on what would have been Terrence’s 80th birthday. I congratulate the trust on its excellent work, particularly in the HIV Prevention England programme, which we are funding to the tune of some £4.5 million. We are in the process of producing an action plan, which will be published this year. Of course, we absolutely stick to our commitment of trying to end new transmissions of HIV within England by 2030. I have also visited Fast Track Cymru, which is working innovatively across Wales, including in rural areas, so hopefully we will make considerable progress.
Several colleagues mentioned veterans. As they will know, the Government acknowledge the hurt caused by the historic ban on LGBT personnel serving in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000. Last year, we launched the LGBT financial recognition scheme with a budget of up to £75 million—50% higher than the previously agreed amount. The scheme intends to provide recognition to those impacted by the ban, and we recognise the need to work quickly through the 1,000-plus applications we have received. We understand the need for timeliness in delivering the scheme and are working closely with stakeholders. Applicants can receive updates on gov.uk.
Many Members have raised the implications of the Supreme Court judgment. I acknowledge the deep concern and anxiety that many people feel following the recent Supreme Court ruling and its potential implications for trans people. I know that for many, this decision has raised serious questions about rights, safety and belonging. I want those people to know that we hear those concerns and recognise the very real impact this moment is having on members of the trans community, their families and allies. But let me be clear: the rights and protections of trans people under the Equality Act remain firmly in place. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment still applies. Discrimination, harassment or victimisation of trans people is unlawful and will remain so.
The independent Equality and Human Rights Commission, Britain’s equality watchdog, is currently consulting on its draft updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations to reflect the judgment and to provide guidance for service providers and employers. We expect the EHRC to seek and listen to a wide range of views through its consultation, which closes on 30 June, and I encourage people to ensure that their views are heard by submitting a response. The consultation will inform the EHRC’s final draft; the Government will then consider that draft. We will review the guidance carefully, ensuring that it reflects both the legal clarity of the Court and our enduring values of inclusion, safety and respect for all, and it will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
I would like to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for her determined campaigning to introduce measures to tackle LGBT+ hate crime. This Government are absolutely committed to tackling all forms of hate crime, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime and make them aggravated offences in the Crime and Policing Bill as it progresses through the other place. This will ensure parity of protection for LGBT+ and disabled people.
Rachel Taylor
I want to take the time to pay tribute to the Minister for her unwavering support throughout what has been a very difficult year so far for LGBT people, and for the trailblazing work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is sitting next to her, have done for our community.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments, and I pay tribute to all the Members who have taken part today. On this side of the House, we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Leeds North West (Katie White), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for South Derbyshire, and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel)—to respond to his point about asylum seekers, the Home Office proceeds on a case-by-case basis and tries to deal sensitively with each case.
From the Opposition Benches, we have heard from the Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), who spoke for the Lib Dems, and from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) from the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) from the SNP and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) from Plaid Cymru, who mentioned Jan Morris. I thank all hon. Members for their contribution; I hope I have not missed anybody out.
As this debate draws to a close, let us return to the spirit that Pride has always embodied: not only visibility, but solidarity; not only protest, but progress; not only celebration, but courage. Let us remember that the rights we defend today were won by those who stood up, often at great personal risk, so that others might live freely. Let us recommit to building a society where no one is made to feel invisible, unsafe or alone because of who they are, who they love or how they live their truth. This Government will continue to stand with LGBT+ people here in the UK and around the world. We will continue to deliver on the promises that we have made. Above all, we will continue to defend the values that uplift us all: dignity and respect for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Pride Month.
Access to GPs
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The ability to access GPs and maintain face-to-face appointments is a pressing issue that affects not just my constituency of North Down but constituencies across the UK. Across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, considerable inequalities exist in access to GP services. Evidence indicates that Northern Ireland receives the lowest investment in GP services among the four regions of the UK.
I acknowledge that we live in an era of high-tech advancements and rapid changes in healthcare delivery. I am intrigued by the potential of electronic prescribing and artificial intelligence to enhance our healthcare system. However, amid these innovations, access to GP services remains as crucial as ever. Access to GP services is a cornerstone of the NHS, providing a fundamental element that allows the health service to operate effectively. However, when comparing the data, I find it concerning that during the same period, 70% of GP appointments in England were conducted face to face compared with only 45% in Northern Ireland.
Alex Easton
Although the figure in Northern Ireland has recently increased to 57%, the disparity remains worrying. I am confident that every MP aspires to see good access to GP services throughout the UK and to preserve the essential interactions within GP care that are vital to the health and wellbeing of our nation.
GPs are often the first point of contact for medical attention and their role is vital. I commend their comprehensive efforts in tackling acute illnesses, managing chronic diseases and providing preventive care, among other crucial responsibilities. However, as the MP for North Down, I share the concerns of many regarding the growing demand for GP healthcare services and the accessibility of these essential services for my constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). He is my neighbour and has been my friend for many years. We served in the Assembly before we ever came here. It is a pleasure to see him secure what I understand is his first Adjournment debate; it will be the first of many, no doubt.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trust in some GP surgeries has diminished due to the lack of face-to-face contact? While sending photographs and having discussions over the phone suits some working constituents, for others the lack of face-to-face interaction can mean that symptoms are missed that can only be seen face to face. Does he also agree that GP surgeries are struggling due to the lack of support, and that surgeries throughout the UK must be given more help and assistance so that they can thereby provide more access for their patients?
Alex Easton
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I totally agree with everything he said. People across Northern Ireland are not able to see their GP as much as those in other parts of the UK. That is leading to big frustrations for our constituents. The lack of support and funding for GPs is adding to the frustration that is felt across the board.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
This is a debate about GP access across the United Kingdom, but one issue in Northern Ireland is GPs’ ability to access indemnity insurance, whereas in England and Wales there is a Government-provided scheme. Does the hon. Member agree that if the Government worked with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to allow our GPs to access that indemnity insurance scheme on a national level, it would ease some of the burden on our GPs?
Alex Easton
I agree, and perhaps the Minister will take that point on board in looking at how we can improve our GP services.
One of the significant challenges across the UK is the shortage of GPs, which inevitably leads to longer waiting times and, unfortunately, sometimes to a compromised quality of care.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
On that point, 4,000 residents in Westvale Park, a new housing development in my constituency, were promised a GP, and they had legally binding section 106 agreements in place. The construction money is there for a GP surgery, but the NHS has not provided the operational funding required for a GP. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the NHS should be providing the operational funding for new GP services on housing developments, and that the entire Government case for new housing developments is undermined if this infrastructure is not provided?
Alex Easton
I totally agree. There is no point in building new houses if we are not going to put in the infrastructure, including health infrastructure and GPs.
While I welcome initiatives aimed at recruiting and retaining GPs, it is concerning that in Northern Ireland we have recruited only 121 GPs when we need 161 merely to restore the levels we had in 2014. The growing UK population, coupled with increasingly complex health needs, is exerting significant pressure on existing resources. In Northern Ireland alone, the population has risen by 70,000 over a decade, while 38 GP practices have closed—a reduction of 11%. It seems clear that as the population grows, funding should increase. We must also recognise that since April 2023, there have been 17 GP contract hand-backs, resulting in a decrease of 12 GP practices, leaving us with a total of 305.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that we need to address the disparity he mentioned—the inequality in GP funding allocations—across the United Kingdom? Despite having some of the most deprived areas with a higher demand, the funding Wolverhampton receives is, on average, 10% less than more affluent areas. The ratio of GPs to patients is therefore lower, which increases the length of time people have to wait to get an appointment with the GP. Does he also agree that the experiences of patients differ? When I speak to my constituents in Wolverhampton West, they give me different accounts of the experiences they have had and the level of service they have received from their GP, depending on the surgery that they use. We need to achieve greater consistency in access to GP surgeries.
Alex Easton
I totally agree with everything the hon. Member says. There are areas across the UK where there are inequalities in people’s access to GPs, and there needs to be a level playing field across the board.
We must consider value for money. Evidence indicates that every £1 invested in GP services yields a £14 return for the local economy. Let me revisit the crucial role of face-to-face appointments. In an increasingly digital world, it is pertinent to ask just how important in-person consultations truly are. While the question is valid, what remains crucial is that face-to-face interactions allow GPs to deliver holistic care that surpasses what is achievable in the virtual environment.
Face-to-face appointments facilitate physical examinations, which are indispensable for accurate diagnosis and treatment planning. While the advances in telemedicine are certainly welcome, physical examinations remain essential for certain symptoms and conditions. In-person consultations are key to effective communication, as they enable GPs to observe non-verbal cues and facial expressions that are crucial in understanding a patient’s needs. Such interactions foster trust, empathy and understanding, greatly enhancing personalised care. This trust encourages patients to be more honest and forthcoming, directly contributing to improved health outcomes. For many vulnerable groups, such as the elderly or individuals living with poor mental health, face-to-face appointments serve as a lifeline. They offer reassurance and a sense of connection, helping to combat isolation and ensure comprehensive care.
In 2022, as we emerged from the covid pandemic, there were 9.7 million GP consultations in Northern Ireland. In 2023, that number increased to 10.1 million. However, we must face the reality that one third of GP practices need the support of the practice improvement crisis response team. I am troubled that with private GP services, we risk creating a two-tier system that exacerbates health inequalities, both in North Down and across Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We must have a GP service that is accessible to all, not just a service reserved for those who can afford it.
We need to invest in our GP workforce and develop effective retention strategies. I direct the House’s attention to the 17 recommendations made by the Royal College of General Practitioners Northern Ireland in its document “A Workforce Fit for the Future”, which warrants thorough consideration followed by decisive action. Other solutions, such as the Pharmacy First programme, deserve detailed consideration. That practice, enabled across the UK, has been shown to effectively serve deprived communities and has real potential to alleviate the workload on our GPs. Therefore, this challenge is not a matter of choosing one over the other, but rather of finding a balance where digital and face-to-face services complement each other in delivering optimal healthcare.
Patients are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being able to speak to or see their GP. GPs are becoming increasingly frustrated at the ever-increasing workload, which has a knock-on effect, with many people having to go to their nearest accident and emergency unit. Those have some very long waiting times, and that adds more pressure to the health system. I emphasise and underline that access to GP services and face-to-face appointments are vital to maintaining a robust health system across the UK.
As I finish, allow me to pose some questions informed by the Royal College of General Practitioners Northern Ireland. Is it not true that Northern Ireland has the lowest proportion of its healthcare budget allocated to GP services, compared with the rest of the UK? Can anyone point to anywhere that spends less? Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland deserves better?
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for raising GP access, which is a vital matter for so many of our constituents. I congratulate him on securing his first Westminster Hall debate—well done on that. [Interruption.] His first Adjournment debate—sorry. We are not in Westminster Hall right now. It has been a long day; I thank hon. Members for their forbearance.
When we ask people what their top priority for the NHS is, the chances are that they will say it is to fix general practice, because GPs are the front door to our national health service. They are the first port of call for millions of people, and they perform a vital service by delivering care in communities right across our country. Of course, health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and decisions about GP services there rightly sit with the Northern Ireland Executive and at Stormont. Nevertheless, this Government are committed to being an active partner in helping to deliver better public service outcomes across the UK while respecting the devolution settlement. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), is here with me on the Front Bench this evening, showing how important the teamwork between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive is.
Ultimately, the underlying challenges are the same. Whether it is access, capacity or workforce pressures, we recognise those issues across the UK. Our manifesto pledged to reset our relationship with the devolved Administrations, to put country before party, and to work with them on issues from trade and tackling child poverty to a whole range of issues around the economy and growth that affect all of us. I welcome this chance to hear the perspective of the hon. Member for North Down and to exchange ideas across the Floor of the Chamber. Access to timely GP appointments is at the heart of a strong and responsive healthcare system.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
On that point, I will raise the issue of a resident who lives in my constituency. She needs to give blood every three months for a long-term condition she has, but she can never get an appointment in Bramhall, where she lives; instead, she has to travel 3 miles to Shaw Heath. That happens every three months. Does the Minister agree that that should not be happening in our country and that access to GPs should be not only easier, but available to all our residents?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree absolutely with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. We will very shortly publish our 10-year plan for the NHS. As I will say a little later in my speech, a big part of that is about the shift to a neighbourhood health service and shifting from hospital to community so that the front door of the NHS is fixed, and access is a vital part of that.
Chris Coghlan
The big issue in my constituency is that I have constituents who are on the point of qualifying as GPs, but they do not have jobs as GPs to go into. What do the Government plan to do as part of their 10-year plan to fix the issue that we have people qualifying as GPs who do not have GP jobs to go into?
Stephen Kinnock
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we secured a record £889 million increase in the GP contract. That is a first step in digging us out of the very deep hole that the previous Government left for us. When I look across my portfolio, whether it is GPs, mental health, dentistry or pharmacy—you name it—it is a car crash right across the piece. I was frankly shocked by what I saw when I first went into the Department back in July. We are, I hope, beginning to get things back on an even keel. The hon. Gentleman is right, though: we do not have a shortage of people coming through GP training, but supply and demand are not matching up. That has to change.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North Down will welcome the fact that we secured £82 million of additional funding through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, leading to the recruitment of an additional 1,700 GPs. The challenge is more about getting GPs in the places where they are most needed, which is something we need to work on—other colleagues have talked about the geographical imbalance. We need to look at the formula for the way that funding is allocated across the country, as it is an important part of the access issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I have been working with Lib Dem councillor Hannah Gostlow to tackle some of the issues that local health services and GP surgeries in Knaresborough are facing. I recently visited a surgery and was told that it had the staff that it wanted to get in place, but did not have the consulting rooms. The problem that surgery faces is that the money from the community infrastructure levy and other sources of funding will not come until further down the line, so it cannot take on those staff because the consulting rooms cannot be built. Does the Minister agree that we need to get funding into those GP services, so that we can provide the services that local people deserve and need?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is right; one challenge we face is that, where we are developing new centres of housing, we are not getting the social infrastructure wrapping around them. We need to use things such as section 106 agreements and the CIL, as he mentioned. That process is not always working—the developers are not always coming forward with real, concrete commitments—so the integrated care boards do not commission because they are not sure that the infrastructure will be there, and we end up in a chicken-and-egg situation. We are working closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to break through some of that and attach stronger strings to the deals being done with developers. We also have the £102 million capital infrastructure scheme for primary care, which will go some way towards addressing the issue, but this is fundamentally about getting much clearer and stronger commitments from developers.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his responses, which have been incredibly helpful. When I think of GP access, I think of two things; the first is Strangford and the villages along the Ards peninsula, where I have lived for most of my life and where I represent. There, the best way of contacting a GP is by phone—that is the nature of the situation there—but one of the things that helps in Newtownards, which is the biggest nucleus of people in the area, is for people to go down to the surgery at 8 o’clock or half-past 8, join the queue and get their appointment there and then. That is another way of trying to access the GP; there is nothing as frustrating as being on the phone from 8 o’clock to half-past 8 or 9 o’clock and not being able to get an appointment. At least when people can see their doctor, they can definitely get one.
Stephen Kinnock
We have to have a mixture of access channels. The telephone is very important, as is being able to turn up in person, but we also need to shift more to online booking. I am really pleased that the new contract that we have with GPs is based on an £889 million investment that came with a lot of strings attached around reform. One of those strings is that every GP surgery—in England, at least—must have online booking facilities by 1 October. I hope that will improve access, and will make more space in the reception process for people who cannot use the internet.
We have to ensure that we get the balance right. That is why, as I mentioned, we took decisive action in October 2024. We invested £82 million in the additional roles reimbursement scheme, which was a targeted move to strengthen our frontline services and ease the pressure on practices across the country. That funding has directly supported the recruitment of over 1,700 GPs across England. Those GPs are now in place, helping to increase appointment availability and—most importantly—improving care for thousands of patients who have been struggling to get the help they need when they need it. We have also seen a rise in the number of GPs employed directly by practices over the past 12 months, which is a positive sign that general practice is stabilising and beginning to rebuild capacity on the ground. Together, these developments are making it easier for patients to access care and for practices to deliver it.
Robin Swann
As the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) mentioned, there are contracts that have been handed back to the Department. We have people coming forward who want to be GPs, but it is getting harder to find those partners who want to run and manage practices. Does the Minister agree that in any training scheme and any course that comes forward, that side of general practice—how to run a business and how to run a practice—needs to be reinforced in training? There are people who want to be GPs and medics, but we need that skills mix, too.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member speaks with great knowledge and expertise in this area, so I am pleased that he is here for this debate. He is right that it is about the skills mix. Many GPs really enjoy the management, administration and leadership role at partnership level. He raises an interesting and important point about the training for that. My impression is that many go into managing a practice having just learned on the job and gone through the process in an ad hoc way. Perhaps training is a matter for further discussion with the Royal College of General Practitioners. It is also about learning to run a business. Could we look at that in respect of universities and MBAs or whatever it might be, given that business administration is an important part of the equation?
I also wanted to say a word about bureaucracy. Too much red tape is holding GPs back. On 4 October, the Secretary of State launched the red tape challenge, with a clear goal to identify and eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens, freeing up GPs to see more patients and focus on delivering high-quality care. Improving access is not just about cutting bureaucracy; it is also about transforming how care is delivered. That is why we have committed to moving towards a neighbourhood health service. That model of care will bring a range of services together, breaking down barriers and silos between services and streamlining support for patients. That integrated approach will mean that patients are seen sooner by the right person in the right setting.
We will require all practices to ensure that patients can go online to request an appointment at any point during core opening hours. That is about not just adding a digital option, but transforming how general practice works for the modern world. By making online access standard, we are giving patients more control and greater flexibility over how they engage with their GP. It will mean no longer having to call at 8 am sharp or waiting in a phone queue. That is especially important for those juggling work, childcare or other responsibilities. This change also helps those who prefer to call or go to the surgery in person; by enabling more people to use online routes, we reduce pressure on phone lines and reception desks, meaning shorter waits and faster service for everyone.
We are also taking action to improve access for those who need it most by incentivising better continuity of care, particularly for patients with chronic or complex conditions. They benefit significantly from seeing the same practitioner over time. Continuity does not just improve the patient experience; it improves outcomes. When patients see a familiar clinician, issues are identified earlier, care is more personalised and time is not lost repeating history or re-explaining symptoms. Our manifesto pledge is to bring back the family doctor, and that is what we will do.
Physical infrastructure has also been mentioned by hon. Members. Our new £102 million primary care utilisation and modernisation fund will create additional clinical space in more than 1,000 GP practices across England. This investment will deliver more appointments and improve patient care.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Stratton surgery in my constituency has long been trying to get access to two rooms on the third floor of the surgery that could be used for clinical space, but the ICB seems to be dragging its feet. The rooms were previously used by Cornwall’s ICB for maternity services. They are no longer in use, so can the Minister please help in working with the ICB to help Stratton surgery to get access to those much-needed clinical spaces?
Stephen Kinnock
If the hon. Member could write to me on that issue, I would be more than happy to look into it. I am always keen to help hon. Members to get their ICBs to move in the right direction.
We have directly provided £61 million to assist the expansion of the multidisciplinary team approach across Northern Ireland, which will help to stabilise primary care, focus on the prevention and management of conditions away from hospital settings, and better utilise the skills of the community and voluntary sector. We will provide additional funding by 2028-29 to bring back the family doctor by supporting the training of thousands more GPs and delivering millions more appointments over the spending review period, and will build further on the 1,700 additional GPs who have already been recruited. Through these improvements, we are making a difference to patient satisfaction: the latest health insight survey shows a sustained improvement in satisfaction, with 72.5% of patients who contacted their general practices in the past 28 days reporting a good overall experience—up from 67.4% in July 2024.
This Government are delivering concrete results, because we believe that everyone deserves access to high-quality care closer to home. I am delighted that general practitioners committee England voted in favour of this year’s GP contract in March. This is the first time the contract has been accepted in four years. The agreement resets our relationship and marks a turning point—a shared commitment to work together on behalf of patients and practitioners alike. The changes in the contract will streamline targets for GPs, incentivise improved continuity of care, make progress towards our health mission and, crucially, require practices to make it possible for patients to go online to request an appointment throughout the duration of core opening hours. Those changes are backed by an extra £889 million, representing cash growth of more than 7% in overall contract investment.
The NHS belongs to the people. Those are not just my words; they are in the NHS constitution. Everything that this Government have done since the election has been geared towards saving the NHS, giving it back to the people and getting it back on its feet. We are putting power back into the hands of patients, where it rightly belongs, because this is their health service and it must work for them. Ensuring that every patient has access to the care that they need is not just a priority, but a promise.
Tom Gordon
I thank the Minister for indulging me again. Will he join me in congratulating the many fantastic GPs in my constituency and throughout the country? It is not an easy job; we hear of the flak that they get from patients day in, day out when they are working to tight timeframes. One such GP in my area is Dr Viv Poskitt, who has been elected as a Liberal Democrat town councillor. Will the Minister share my thanks to Viv and to all the GPs across our country?
Stephen Kinnock
I will certainly congratulate Dr Viv Poskitt—I think I have got the name right—on being a GP, although I will probably not congratulate her on being a Liberal Democrat town councillor. The hon. Gentleman is right: GPs are the backbone, or the beating heart, of our NHS. They represent the front door, and we must fix that front door, which is currently creaking on its hinges. This Government are absolutely committed to fixing it, and to moving on from there to fix our NHS, get it back on its feet and make it fit for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Marking of Retail Good Regulations 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 5 June and which will protect the availability of retail goods in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. It will do so by providing the Secretary of State with a targeted power to implement “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain.
I will first set out the background to the policy. The Windsor framework, which was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023, replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol. A key component of the framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland by removing the requirements for costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This also allows goods to move on the basis of UK food safety standards. The scheme operates alongside other schemes and flexibilities that smooth the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework.
To benefit from those simplified arrangements, business operators must label certain retail goods as “not for EU”. Such labelling requirements are being introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July 2025. At that point, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland relative to that in Great Britain, certain businesses may decide that it is not commercially advantageous to label their goods exclusively for the Northern Ireland market. This runs the risk that businesses would have to remove their goods from sale in Northern Ireland rather than make the necessary changes.
That is not an acceptable outcome for this Government. We believe that the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme is essential to ensuring product supply in Northern Ireland. We will therefore ensure that no incentive arises for businesses to avoid placing goods on the Northern Ireland market through this legislation.
That brings me to the purpose of the draft regulations, which will empower the Secretary of State to issue a notice requiring that certain retail goods be labelled as “not for EU” when placed on the market in Great Britain. To make this determination, he will need to be satisfied that the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland will be seriously adversely affected. He will also need to be satisfied that this is a direct result of the requirement to mark a product as “not for EU” to move into Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme.
The Secretary of State will consider a variety of evidence, including information on the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, the way in which goods are moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and representations made by UK businesses on making goods available in Northern Ireland. He will also consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, in recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter. He may engage the Windsor framework independent monitoring panel, which was established through the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, for its advice.
Once a notice is enforced, relevant business operators in Great Britain will need to ensure that goods in scope of a notice are labelled “not for EU” before they are placed on the market in Great Britain. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, we will take away the incentive for businesses to stop supplying goods to Northern Ireland. The extended requirement will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive for businesses to label their goods. This will ensure continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and uphold the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper.
The timing of the draft regulations is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must legislate now to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter businesses from taking decisions to remove their products from the market. We must have the tools to act, should it appear likely that products may no longer be available in Northern Ireland.
I will outline the key provisions of the draft regulations. The Secretary of State must issue a marking notice specifying which goods must be labelled in Great Britain and from what date. He should do so after making a determination that the supply of certain retail goods
“is, or is likely to be, seriously adversely affected”
as a result of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. The notice must be published in the London Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette and must be accompanied by a written statement to Parliament explaining the rationale. Separately, we will publish the notice on gov.uk, as well as promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses. The obligation would fall on the relevant business operator that first places the goods on the market in Great Britain; this is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging.
Exemptions will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this Government’s commitment to support growth. Enforcement powers will be delegated to local authorities, with a regime of improvement notices and fixed monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Together, these provisions will ensure that there is a clear deterrent for businesses that may choose to withdraw supply from the Northern Ireland market, as well as an active tool that will be deployed in that event. That will protect consumers in Northern Ireland, as well as trade within the United Kingdom internal market, thereby reinforcing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. This will also support our relationship with the European Union. Through our common understanding, which was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, we and the EU have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Once finalised, that will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agrifood requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that it may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.
Achieving such benefits, however, relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in future. We therefore expect that the draft regulations will maximise compliance with labelling requirements from 1 July and will prevent the movement of unlabelled goods onwards into Northern Ireland.
We believe that the draft regulations are a pragmatic and proportionate response to a material risk. They will support the continued flow of goods across our United Kingdom, protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland and reinforce our commitment to the Union. I commend them to the Committee.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations.
The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies.
Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control?
The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension?
I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a joy to serve under your guidance this evening, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister very much for his introductory remarks. I support the draft regulations, which will provide the Government with a power to introduce “not for EU” labelling across Great Britain should it be needed to protect the UK internal market and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. They make it clear that the Secretary of State can decide to apply such labelling only where there is evidence that the supply of the product is seriously adversely affected by business operators withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market. I am pleased to observe that small businesses will not be expected to adhere to this measure and that Northern Irish goods will not need to be labelled to be placed on the market in Great Britain. Food for special medical purposes will also be exempted.
Over the past several years, Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the approach being taken to this issue. More recently, we have raised concerns about the risk that other British businesses will lose out on trade with Northern Ireland as a result of the additional burdens associated with labelling. Despite that, we appreciate that the Government have taken a more workable and phased-out approach than the blanket label system that the previous Government proposed.
The draft regulations will ensure that the requirements are applied in a more limited and intelligent way, rather than in the comprehensive way that would have done unnecessary damage economically not just to farmers and producers in Northern Ireland, but right across the island of Britain. This instrument takes a more sensible approach: it will allow discretion, limit damage to business and minimise red tape, bureaucracy and unnecessary business costs.
Of course, it will not end such costs altogether. That is a reminder that the deal cooked up in early 2020 has a lasting, damaging impact on the UK economy and on our farmers, and that non-tariff trade barriers with Europe create real friction and cause real harm to farmers right across the United Kingdom and to food producers of every kind. It is worth remembering that 17,000 businesses since January 2020 have stopped trading with the European Union, fundamentally because of non-tariff barriers to trade such as this, so I echo the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest: I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the extent to which the EU reset will affect the requirements of this agreement and whether there will be any easing in trade friction.
This is not an issue that can be considered on its own. The impact on food producers on both sides of the Irish sea is significant. That comes alongside the impact on farmers’ confidence and business planning as a result of the inheritance tax changes; the 76% cut in basic payments for farmers this financial year; the £100 million reduction in like-for-like farm funding announced in the spending review last week; the enduring impact on British farmers of the unfair and unbalanced trade deals negotiated by the previous Government; and the trade friction caused by the separation of our farmers and food producers from their biggest external market, which is of course the European Union. We believe that food security must be treated as a public good, which is why I was pleased that the Farming Minister has agreed to meet me and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in the coming weeks to discuss food security; I will be delighted to take advantage of that offer.
Nevertheless, the draft regulations are a significant improvement on what came before. It is right that discretion is being allowed. It is right that it is being done in a limited way, with small businesses exempted. The damage that will be done, both in Northern Ireland and on the island of Great Britain, will be mitigated by the draft regulations, but of course they will not entirely eradicate the damage that we have done by severing ourselves from our biggest market and our biggest international trading partner.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Desmond. As a Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the draft regulations. They come in a context in which there has already been an indisputable, substantial and worrying diversion of trade in terms of the supply of goods and produce to Northern Ireland. The most recent figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency indicate just how significant that is, yet within the Windsor framework there is supposedly a mechanism under article 16 to enable the Government to take action should there be a diversion of trade. However, this Government, like the last, are blind to that issue and do not want to take on the EU on any of these matters.
It is important for the Committee to understand the genesis—how we got to this point. It all arises from an SPS regulation, EU regulation 2023/1231. This is a regulation that was made by a foreign political organisation—the EU—and the most astounding thing about it is that it makes rules that exclusively apply to non-EU territory. It makes regulations that apply not to itself, but to this United Kingdom. This is the first time since Brexit that the EU has asserted legislative power over the United Kingdom. It tells this United Kingdom that, in a series of three steps, there shall be introduced by this United Kingdom “not for EU” labelling on goods moving within this United Kingdom from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This is the diktat of the EU: the three steps in Regulation 2023/1231.
As the Minister has alluded to, we come today to the final third step, which is to be introduced in just a few days, on 1 July. Building on the previous two steps, it decrees that goods that are moving from Great Britain, allegedly within the UK internal market, must, by EU law, carry a “not for EU” label. That, of course, has cost implications for those who are sending them, which is why, as a result of the requirements already imposed, a number of companies have simply opted out of supplying to Northern Ireland.
Here is the most ludicrous aspect of this SPS regulation: it creates no prohibition on any EU citizen—most particularly in the Republic of Ireland—purchasing any of these “not for EU” goods. So we put on GB suppliers a costly obligation to engage in labelling of goods that they might be sending to Northern Ireland, but, within Northern Ireland, anyone from the Republic of Ireland can come and buy those goods and can do whatever they want with them.
This is supposedly about protecting the EU single market. How can it be that we have this ludicrous situation that goods are labelled as “not for EU” but can be brought into the EU with no consequence, all under an EU regulation that puts a burden on the United Kingdom but no burden on its own citizens? I guarantee that if anyone went now, at this very moment, to any of the supermarkets in Northern Ireland around the border, in Enniskillen, Londonderry or Newry, they would see people filling up their car boot with goods labelled as “not for EU”, because they are cheaper. Yet we have this ludicrous situation whereby we are now going to impose an even wider duty on British manufacturers. For what purpose? For the purpose only of showing how compliant doormats we are for the EU, for no practical purpose whatever. That is the reality of the situation. I therefore say to the Committee that it should not approve a regulation of this genesis and this nature.
Of course, it is going to burden on industry in Great Britain, and it is not as if there were not already burdens. Even under the internal market scheme, if someone is sending produce to Northern Ireland, they must fill in a customs declaration, which is an expense in itself, and must belong to a trusted trader scheme, which is a further expense. Now, on top of that, they must label their goods as “not for EU”, even though there is no purpose, other than that which is farcical, in doing that.
I say to this Committee: surely, out of respect for your own GB businesses, you should not be rushing into approving a regulation such as this, because it will add burdens, and it will cause companies to de-list. Paragraph 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum recognises what some of us have always been saying: that creating an Irish sea border—creating barriers within our own supposed internal market—will discourage trade. That is why the Government say they are bringing these regulations—to protect against discouraging trade—but will it?
First of all, any “small company”, which is a company with fewer than 50 employees, is not affected: it can de-list Northern Ireland with no consequence. So, in my constituency, artisan cheese people who might buy from a small supplier in Wiltshire, or dear knows where, will no longer simply be supplied, with no penalty upon the provider, because small companies are exempt. This will also enforce the requirement on GB producers to label their goods, even though their goods will never come to Northern Ireland. That is what Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom should realise. The draft regulations, if the Government act upon them, will require producers in GB, supplying only to GB, to put on their produce, “not for EU”. These regulations are ill-considered and will do nothing to address the fundamental problem of the distortion and upset to the UK internal market that has flowed from the Windsor framework and the protocol, which were identical in this regard.
If this Government want an answer to the Irish sea border, it lies in the very simple but workable proposition of mutual enforcement: we send goods to a recipient country, meeting its standards, and vice versa. We do not need any of this crazy, trade-reducing paraphernalia. We certainly do not need to add extra cost to business, which is what these regulations will foolishly do, all for the purpose of the Prime Minister being able to say, “I’m a faithful implementer of the Windsor framework,” even though the Windsor framework is tearing apart this Union and is literally divorcing Northern Ireland from its natural market, which is so impeded by regulation, to which this legislation is adding.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.
The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.
I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.
Jim Allister
That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?
Daniel Zeichner
The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.
We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.
We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
Draft Combined Authorities (Adult Education Functions) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Adult Education Functions) (Amendment) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Stuart. The draft order was laid before the House on 19 May 2025. If it is approved, the Department for Education will transfer an additional funding power to nine existing combined authorities to enable them to use their adult skills fund allocation to fund new technical qualifications that have been approved for adults, starting from the new academic year on 1 August 2025.
The function being transferred to those combined authorities is under section 100(1B) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Namely, it is the power to secure the provision of financial resources
“in connection with approved technical education qualifications or approved steps towards occupational competence.”
The power will be used by each of the combined authorities in respect of their area, concurrently with the Secretary of State. It will enable combined authorities to fund new technical qualifications for adults approved for funding at levels 2 and 3 from 1 August 2025.
The new technical qualifications are high quality, aligned to occupational standards and offer learners clear routes into skilled employment. There are 110 reformed technical qualifications at levels 2 and 3 that have been approved to be first taught in the next academic year. The qualifications are based on occupational standards that have been co-designed with employers. That will ensure that the skills needs of business and industry are better served, and that clear progression pathways are created, delivering the outcomes learners need either to enter into a skilled job or to progress within a skilled career.
Learners deserve high-quality qualifications that meet their needs. If the draft order is approved, combined authorities will have the freedom to fund these qualifications in order to meet the local needs of learners and employers. It is important that local areas are empowered to make decisions that address the specific challenges in their area, so that more people of all ages and backgrounds are given opportunities to develop the skills and experience they need. Adults should be able to access the same learning offer regardless of where they live. Transferring this power will enable combined authorities with an existing devolution deal to fund new technical qualifications. Ensuring that all authorities have access to reformed, high-quality qualifications is key to reducing regional disparities.
If the draft order is approved, the nine combined authorities will be able to choose to fund new technical qualifications available for delivery from August 2025 onwards. It is a statutory requirement for public consultation to take place before changes are made to combined authorities’ existing arrangements. The Department for Education carried out a public consultation in November last year, and 85% of respondents agreed that the Secretary of State should transfer this additional power to the existing combined authorities. Each of the combined authorities affected, and all their constituent councils, have also consented to the transfer of the power and to the making of the order.
Such an order can be made only if the appropriate consent is given and the Secretary of State considers that it is
“likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all of the people who live or work in the areas to which this Order relates”.
These combined authorities have been delivering adult education functions for some time already, and have demonstrated effective administration of the adult skills fund allocated to them in respect of their area. The Secretary of State has considered the views expressed by the relevant combined authorities, as well as those received in response to the public consultation, and is satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order to transfer the power under section 100(1B) of the 2009 Act to these authorities.
The draft order is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some, or all, of the people who live or work in the areas to which it relates, because it will enable adults to access reformed qualifications that are designed to lead to sustainable occupations. It is appropriate to make the order, as it will enable combined authorities to provide the full range of technical qualifications that have been approved for adults. I therefore confirm that we have concluded that the statutory tests have been met.
I thank all our partner organisations, colleagues and the relevant combined authorities for their time, expertise and input. To conclude, the draft order will give nine combined authorities the ability to fund the delivery of new technical qualifications from August ’25 onwards to meet local skills needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their region. I commend the order to the Committee.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I will not detain the Committee for long, because this is a technical piece of legislation simply updating regulations to reflect new qualifications and, in a sense, maintaining the principle that we established during our time in government of devolving the adult skills budget, but I want to make one point and press the Minister on one issue. The point I want to make is that although the Government were critical of us for cuts to the adult skills budget when we were in office, they have now themselves cut the adult skills budget by 6% in recent months.
I mention that not to make a political point—although that is something that Labour Members criticised us for doing when they were in opposition, but they have now done themselves in government—but, in part, to frame a question. I asked this question of the Minister for children, families and wellbeing, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), in April, when we debated regulations on the devolution of adult skills spending to Cornwall and North Yorkshire. I asked her to write to me, and she agreed that she would write on this particular point, but I am afraid no letter was ever forthcoming. I wondered whether I could have another go with DFE colleagues.
A lot of people in combined authorities say to me, “It’s all very well saying that you’ve devolved adult skills spending, but in practice, when the money arrives”—and it is now 6% less—“the great majority of it is taken up by spending on statutory entitlements that we don’t have any control over.” They are not complaining about the statutory entitlements; they are merely making the point that devolution in this area is not necessarily what it sounds like when Ministers announce it. That is a fair point, which applied equally to us when we were in government as it does to the current Government. I press the Minister again to agree to write to me, to tell me: what proportion of spending of the adult skills budget in combined authorities is not taken up by statutory entitlement? What is the real devolution here? What is really left over once the authorities have spent all this money on things that we compel them to spend it on?
I encourage the Minister to get that answered, not just for my benefit but for hers, so that she can understand what is really being devolved or not, and whether we can do something to give the combined authorities a greater margin for flexibility. The Government say that they are in favour of devolution—that is in line with their industrial strategy, which they are saying more about today—so that members of the combined authorities are able to fit local skills spending to their local needs. However, that is only freedom if there is some genuinely free money in the system, and it is not clear that there is that much.
I therefore encourage the Minister to agree to write to me. I apologise to the Minister and officials if the letter was sent, but got lost in the post somewhere. It is an interesting question. I hope the Minister will agree to write on that point and look into the question.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Member’s interest in this issue, and his support for the outcomes of the draft order, which, as he acknowledged, is technical in nature. I appreciate his concerns about devolution, and the extent to which local areas are empowered to maximise outcomes from the funding. The intention is very much to give local areas the freedom to use the funding as best suits the needs of their local area, and to make sure that local areas can maximise the effectiveness of those resources to deliver the greatest benefit to local people.
As the hon. Member agrees, adult skills have a vital role to play in driving economic growth, but tough decisions have had to be made across Government on how we target spending. He asked specifically about how local areas are spending the funding. As he will know, the context of each local area is different, by design, so that local areas can manage their overall budget, make their own choices and allocate funding towards the priorities that they regard as the most important.
I will certainly take away the hon. Member’s question, and see whether that information can be presented in the way that he asked for, given that the measure is particularly about devolution, and local areas do have the ability to make decisions in their own context. I will take his question back to the Department, as he asks, and see to what extent that information is available to be provided to him.
I thank again our partner organisations and colleagues in the combined authorities for their time, expertise and input. To be clear, the draft order will give combined authorities the ability to fund new technical qualifications from August 2025. Our priority is to deliver a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that the economy needs, and for local areas to be empowered to make decisions to address specific challenges in their area. We really want to see all adults become active participants in the workforce and deliver on that growth agenda, and empower combined authorities to target support in local areas in a way that we know will unlock opportunity for more people. I think that is what we all want to see. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 5 June and which will protect the availability of retail goods in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland, to maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland and to protect the UK internal market. It will do so by providing the Secretary of State with a targeted power to implement “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain.
I will first set out the background to the policy. The Windsor framework, which was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023, replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol. A key component of the framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland by removing the requirements for costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This also allows goods to move on the basis of UK food safety standards. The scheme operates alongside other schemes and flexibilities that smooth the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework.
To benefit from those simplified arrangements, business operators must label certain retail goods as “not for EU”. Such labelling requirements are being introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July 2025. At that point, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland relative to that in Great Britain, certain businesses may decide that it is not commercially advantageous to label their goods exclusively for the Northern Ireland market. This runs the risk that businesses would have to remove their goods from sale in Northern Ireland rather than make the necessary changes.
That is not an acceptable outcome for this Government. We believe that the smooth operation of the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme is essential to ensuring product supply in Northern Ireland. We will therefore ensure that no incentive arises for businesses to avoid placing goods on the Northern Ireland market through this legislation.
That brings me to the purpose of the draft regulations, which will empower the Secretary of State to issue a notice requiring that certain retail goods be labelled as “not for EU” when placed on the market in Great Britain. To make this determination, he will need to be satisfied that the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland will be seriously adversely affected. He will also need to be satisfied that this is a direct result of the requirement to mark a product as “not for EU” to move into Northern Ireland via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme.
The Secretary of State will consider a variety of evidence, including information on the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, the way in which goods are moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and representations made by UK businesses on making goods available in Northern Ireland. He will also consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers, in recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter. He may engage the Windsor framework independent monitoring panel, which was established through the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, for its advice.
Once a notice is enforced, relevant business operators in Great Britain will need to ensure that goods in scope of a notice are labelled “not for EU” before they are placed on the market in Great Britain. By extending the labelling requirement to the much larger GB market for certain products, we will take away the incentive for businesses to stop supplying goods to Northern Ireland. The extended requirement will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive for businesses to label their goods. This will ensure continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and uphold the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper.
The timing of the draft regulations is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must legislate now to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter businesses from taking decisions to remove their products from the market. We must have the tools to act, should it appear likely that products may no longer be available in Northern Ireland.
I will outline the key provisions of the draft regulations. The Secretary of State must issue a marking notice specifying which goods must be labelled in Great Britain and from what date. He should do so after making a determination that the supply of certain retail goods
“is, or is likely to be, seriously adversely affected”
as a result of the “not for EU” labelling requirement. The notice must be published in the London Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette and must be accompanied by a written statement to Parliament explaining the rationale. Separately, we will publish the notice on gov.uk, as well as promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses. The obligation would fall on the relevant business operator that first places the goods on the market in Great Britain; this is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging.
Exemptions will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, in line with this Government’s commitment to support growth. Enforcement powers will be delegated to local authorities, with a regime of improvement notices and fixed monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Together, these provisions will ensure that there is a clear deterrent for businesses that may choose to withdraw supply from the Northern Ireland market, as well as an active tool that will be deployed in that event. That will protect consumers in Northern Ireland, as well as trade within the United Kingdom internal market, thereby reinforcing Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. This will also support our relationship with the European Union. Through our common understanding, which was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, we and the EU have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Once finalised, that will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agrifood requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that it may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.
Achieving such benefits, however, relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in future. We therefore expect that the draft regulations will maximise compliance with labelling requirements from 1 July and will prevent the movement of unlabelled goods onwards into Northern Ireland.
We believe that the draft regulations are a pragmatic and proportionate response to a material risk. They will support the continued flow of goods across our United Kingdom, protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland and reinforce our commitment to the Union. I commend them to the Committee.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations.
The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies.
Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control?
The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension?
I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a joy to serve under your guidance this evening, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister very much for his introductory remarks. I support the draft regulations, which will provide the Government with a power to introduce “not for EU” labelling across Great Britain should it be needed to protect the UK internal market and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. They make it clear that the Secretary of State can decide to apply such labelling only where there is evidence that the supply of the product is seriously adversely affected by business operators withdrawing from the Northern Ireland market. I am pleased to observe that small businesses will not be expected to adhere to this measure and that Northern Irish goods will not need to be labelled to be placed on the market in Great Britain. Food for special medical purposes will also be exempted.
Over the past several years, Liberal Democrats have raised concerns about the approach being taken to this issue. More recently, we have raised concerns about the risk that other British businesses will lose out on trade with Northern Ireland as a result of the additional burdens associated with labelling. Despite that, we appreciate that the Government have taken a more workable and phased-out approach than the blanket label system that the previous Government proposed.
The draft regulations will ensure that the requirements are applied in a more limited and intelligent way, rather than in the comprehensive way that would have done unnecessary damage economically not just to farmers and producers in Northern Ireland, but right across the island of Britain. This instrument takes a more sensible approach: it will allow discretion, limit damage to business and minimise red tape, bureaucracy and unnecessary business costs.
Of course, it will not end such costs altogether. That is a reminder that the deal cooked up in early 2020 has a lasting, damaging impact on the UK economy and on our farmers, and that non-tariff trade barriers with Europe create real friction and cause real harm to farmers right across the United Kingdom and to food producers of every kind. It is worth remembering that 17,000 businesses since January 2020 have stopped trading with the European Union, fundamentally because of non-tariff barriers to trade such as this, so I echo the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest: I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the extent to which the EU reset will affect the requirements of this agreement and whether there will be any easing in trade friction.
This is not an issue that can be considered on its own. The impact on food producers on both sides of the Irish sea is significant. That comes alongside the impact on farmers’ confidence and business planning as a result of the inheritance tax changes; the 76% cut in basic payments for farmers this financial year; the £100 million reduction in like-for-like farm funding announced in the spending review last week; the enduring impact on British farmers of the unfair and unbalanced trade deals negotiated by the previous Government; and the trade friction caused by the separation of our farmers and food producers from their biggest external market, which is of course the European Union. We believe that food security must be treated as a public good, which is why I was pleased that the Farming Minister has agreed to meet me and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in the coming weeks to discuss food security; I will be delighted to take advantage of that offer.
Nevertheless, the draft regulations are a significant improvement on what came before. It is right that discretion is being allowed. It is right that it is being done in a limited way, with small businesses exempted. The damage that will be done, both in Northern Ireland and on the island of Great Britain, will be mitigated by the draft regulations, but of course they will not entirely eradicate the damage that we have done by severing ourselves from our biggest market and our biggest international trading partner.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Desmond. As a Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the draft regulations. They come in a context in which there has already been an indisputable, substantial and worrying diversion of trade in terms of the supply of goods and produce to Northern Ireland. The most recent figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency indicate just how significant that is, yet within the Windsor framework there is supposedly a mechanism under article 16 to enable the Government to take action should there be a diversion of trade. However, this Government, like the last, are blind to that issue and do not want to take on the EU on any of these matters.
It is important for the Committee to understand the genesis—how we got to this point. It all arises from an SPS regulation, EU regulation 2023/1231. This is a regulation that was made by a foreign political organisation—the EU—and the most astounding thing about it is that it makes rules that exclusively apply to non-EU territory. It makes regulations that apply not to itself, but to this United Kingdom. This is the first time since Brexit that the EU has asserted legislative power over the United Kingdom. It tells this United Kingdom that, in a series of three steps, there shall be introduced by this United Kingdom “not for EU” labelling on goods moving within this United Kingdom from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This is the diktat of the EU: the three steps in Regulation 2023/1231.
As the Minister has alluded to, we come today to the final third step, which is to be introduced in just a few days, on 1 July. Building on the previous two steps, it decrees that goods that are moving from Great Britain, allegedly within the UK internal market, must, by EU law, carry a “not for EU” label. That, of course, has cost implications for those who are sending them, which is why, as a result of the requirements already imposed, a number of companies have simply opted out of supplying to Northern Ireland.
Here is the most ludicrous aspect of this SPS regulation: it creates no prohibition on any EU citizen—most particularly in the Republic of Ireland—purchasing any of these “not for EU” goods. So we put on GB suppliers a costly obligation to engage in labelling of goods that they might be sending to Northern Ireland, but, within Northern Ireland, anyone from the Republic of Ireland can come and buy those goods and can do whatever they want with them.
This is supposedly about protecting the EU single market. How can it be that we have this ludicrous situation that goods are labelled as “not for EU” but can be brought into the EU with no consequence, all under an EU regulation that puts a burden on the United Kingdom but no burden on its own citizens? I guarantee that if anyone went now, at this very moment, to any of the supermarkets in Northern Ireland around the border, in Enniskillen, Londonderry or Newry, they would see people filling up their car boot with goods labelled as “not for EU”, because they are cheaper. Yet we have this ludicrous situation whereby we are now going to impose an even wider duty on British manufacturers. For what purpose? For the purpose only of showing how compliant doormats we are for the EU, for no practical purpose whatever. That is the reality of the situation. I therefore say to the Committee that it should not approve a regulation of this genesis and this nature.
Of course, it is going to burden on industry in Great Britain, and it is not as if there were not already burdens. Even under the internal market scheme, if someone is sending produce to Northern Ireland, they must fill in a customs declaration, which is an expense in itself, and must belong to a trusted trader scheme, which is a further expense. Now, on top of that, they must label their goods as “not for EU”, even though there is no purpose, other than that which is farcical, in doing that.
I say to this Committee: surely, out of respect for your own GB businesses, you should not be rushing into approving a regulation such as this, because it will add burdens, and it will cause companies to de-list. Paragraph 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum recognises what some of us have always been saying: that creating an Irish sea border—creating barriers within our own supposed internal market—will discourage trade. That is why the Government say they are bringing these regulations—to protect against discouraging trade—but will it?
First of all, any “small company”, which is a company with fewer than 50 employees, is not affected: it can de-list Northern Ireland with no consequence. So, in my constituency, artisan cheese people who might buy from a small supplier in Wiltshire, or dear knows where, will no longer simply be supplied, with no penalty upon the provider, because small companies are exempt. This will also enforce the requirement on GB producers to label their goods, even though their goods will never come to Northern Ireland. That is what Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom should realise. The draft regulations, if the Government act upon them, will require producers in GB, supplying only to GB, to put on their produce, “not for EU”. These regulations are ill-considered and will do nothing to address the fundamental problem of the distortion and upset to the UK internal market that has flowed from the Windsor framework and the protocol, which were identical in this regard.
If this Government want an answer to the Irish sea border, it lies in the very simple but workable proposition of mutual enforcement: we send goods to a recipient country, meeting its standards, and vice versa. We do not need any of this crazy, trade-reducing paraphernalia. We certainly do not need to add extra cost to business, which is what these regulations will foolishly do, all for the purpose of the Prime Minister being able to say, “I’m a faithful implementer of the Windsor framework,” even though the Windsor framework is tearing apart this Union and is literally divorcing Northern Ireland from its natural market, which is so impeded by regulation, to which this legislation is adding.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, for his support and for raising some important questions. Of course, we want to minimise costs to business, and we made the decision to introduce a targeted power, as opposed to a mandatory requirement for all goods, to prevent some of those costs. As we set out in the impact assessment, the indicative cost to business of applying “not for EU” labelling to a subset of product lines is significantly less and will vary depending on the product. Moreover, the non-monetised benefits, particularly safeguarding food security in Northern Ireland, will be a crucial part of maintaining a strong economy.
The shadow Minister asked how many businesses are likely to seek extensions, but I think that that will only become apparent over time. He also asked about costs to local authorities; given that the statutory instrument is a contingency power, enforcement costs will only be incurred should the powers in the SI be activated. Any enforcement activity would be undertaken by the local authority as part of existing food labelling checks to minimise the burden.
I listened closely to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and, as I so often do, I found a lot in his comments to agree with. I very much look forward to our discussions with Lord Curry in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, very importantly, provided a voice from Northern Ireland in this debate. He asked why we are not triggering article 16, but that would happen only in the event of a massive distortion to trade. A decision to activate article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade now and in future, and that is what we anticipate will happen.
Jim Allister
That is news to me. I do not have article 16 in front of me, but I do not believe that it says “massive distortion”. However, what article 1 of the Windsor framework does say is that the EU will respect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. Where is the respect for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom in the EU insisting that we have its “not for EU” labelling? Where is the respect there?
Daniel Zeichner
The respect is that we now have a good agreement with our friends in the European Union. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to recognise the advantages that we are gaining from that, both for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. Triggering article 16 would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers and that businesses rely on, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the United Kingdom and EU markets.
We will keep this legislation under review. The statutory review clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct the first review after two years, rather than the customary five, and that will allow for scrutiny of the policy in the context of the proposed SPS agreement. Once completed, the SPS agreement will facilitate the smooth flow of agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, protecting the UK’s internal market, reducing costs to businesses and improving consumer choice. As I have noted, we expect the requirement to label goods as “not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the agreement, which may in turn reduce the need for the power conferred by these regulations.
We must meet our existing international obligations to reach that point. We must continue to fully implement the Windsor framework in good faith, while ensuring Northern Irish consumers are protected. That is why this legislation is essential in supporting this Government’s renewed partnership with the EU, which will deliver a broader range of benefits for people and businesses in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
I conclude by returning to the primary purpose of this legislation: to provide a safeguard against reduced product availability and to maintain consumer choice in Northern Ireland. This Government are committed to delivering on the commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper for the people of Northern Ireland. The draft regulations will demonstrate that commitment by ensuring that the Government are able to act decisively if required.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025.
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
Geo-engineering and the Environment
(1 day, 22 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
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 701963 relating to geo-engineering and the environment.
The petition was started by Antoinette Taylor and opened on 23 December 2024. As of 12 June 2025, it had gathered more than 159,000 signatures. Just two of those signatures were from my South Cotswolds constituency, so I clearly did not step up to lead this debate in an effort to win votes. I am here because I believe this issue matters deeply for our future and for the future of the planet on which we rely for life.
Geo-engineering is a broad term used to describe a range of large-scale interventions in Earth’s climate system, so I will start by clarifying a couple of definitions. Geo-engineering falls into two main categories: carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. The petition calls for a pre-emptive ban on both. CDR is about drawing carbon out of the atmosphere and can involve technology such as carbon capture, or nature-based solutions such as restoring forests, peatlands and grasslands. I have absolutely no problem with the latter. Trees do not need subsidies, peatlands do not break, and healthy soils not only store carbon but improve water quality, mitigate flooding and support biodiversity. They are our natural allies in the fight against climate change.
SRM is a different matter. It aims to reflect sunlight back into space by various means, such as using aerosols sprayed into the stratosphere, whitening clouds or even placing mirrors in orbit. SRM does not remove carbon. It does not stop ocean acidification. It does not reduce fossil fuel use. It masks the symptoms while the root cause, our fossil fuel carbon emissions, goes unchecked. Whatever options we consider as we confront the climate crisis, we must not be distracted from our overriding mission to tackle the key cause of climate change: our reliance on fossil fuels.
Let us talk about the risks of SRM. First, there is the issue of unintended consequences. Humanity does not have a good track record on this. Our weather systems are immensely complex, interconnected and not well understood. Altering sunlight could potentially disrupt monsoons or shift jet streams, or trigger droughts in some regions while causing floods in others. According to a report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, SRM could delay ozone recovery by decades. It could disrupt rainfall patterns, and would do nothing to stop our oceans absorbing carbon dioxide and forming the carbonic acid that is affecting the viability of phytoplankton, which are essential for life on Earth, generating half the oxygen we breathe.
There is also the problem of scientific control. We cannot conduct a controlled experiment with SRM. We do not have two planets, one on which we conduct SRM and one on which we do not. There is no planet B to test it on. Once SRM is deployed, we are in effect launching a planetary experiment, with no ability to reverse it if things go wrong. As the petitioners have highlighted, even if SRM “works” in the short term, there is a risk that our climate will become dependent on continual injections. If the injections stopped for any reason, which in our turbulent geopolitical world is entirely possible, we would risk a phenomenon known as termination shock: a sudden extreme spike in global temperatures, which would be potentially catastrophic for life on Earth.
As for the chemicals used in SRM, the aerosols under consideration include sulphates and even aluminium. The matter is still being researched, and there is no definitive link between aluminium and conditions such as Alzheimer’s, but many scientists remain cautious about prolonged exposure. Sulphates are precisely the chemicals that we worked so hard to eliminate under the Montreal protocol, because of their role in depleting the ozone layer. We should consider carefully the possibility that deploying SRM could put us in direct violation of the protocol, which is one of the most successful international environmental agreements ever forged.
We must consider the human cost of climate change and any measures that we might take to mitigate it. Who decides the thermostat setting? Who gets more rain, and who goes without? Can we even control these things? The risks of failing to invest in technology to tackle the root causes of climate change threaten serious regional disruption. As always, it will almost certainly be the poorest and least responsible for the crisis who bear the brunt of the fallout.
Some will argue that we are still doing too little, too late to mitigate climate change, and I agree with them, but that does not mean that SRM is the right answer. SRM could take us out of the frying pan and into the fire. Instead of reaching for techno fixes, we need to do what we already know works: cut fossil fuel use, restore nature and—gosh—maybe even look at changing our behaviour, because at some point, sooner or later, behaviour change must be part of the picture. If we are honest, none of the technologies yet available to us—not even the most advanced forms of carbon removal—can keep pace with our current levels of consumption.
Globally, we are still emitting about 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. If we continue on our current path—as an environmental campaigner for more than two decades, I very much hope we do not—we are headed for about 2.7° of warming by the end of the century. We know that the consequences of that level of warming include rising seas, more intense storms, loss of crop yields, the mass displacement of humans, accelerating biodiversity loss and heatwaves that will put many, many lives at risk.
Although carbon capture is often talked about as a solution, the reality is sobering. It is, for sure, less perilous than SRM, but the vast majority of carbon capture projects are still very small in scale, and many use almost as much energy to capture carbon dioxide as was emitted in the first place. To scale carbon capture up to a level at which we could even begin to think about continuing business as usual would require enormous amounts of infrastructure, energy and funding.
Meanwhile, it is increasingly clear that we have to transition away from fossil fuels. I am talking not ideologically but economically. The energy return on fossil fuels is falling. In the early days of oil, when we could just stick a nodding donkey in the ground anywhere in Texas and hit oil, we got about 100 barrels out for every barrel-worth of energy invested; today, the figure is down to close to 20 and still falling. At some point, the economics will simply stop making sense. Fossil fuels are finite, and the cost of extraction is rising, so given that we know we will have to make the transition at some point, sooner or later, why not do it sooner? The question is not whether we will move on, but whether we will do it on our own terms or wait until crisis forces our hand.
Some argue that we live on a planet on which the climate has always changed, but historically it has changed slowly, giving species time to adapt. The most dramatic climatic shifts took place before humans came on the scene. Our western civilisation has evolved during an unusually stable climatic period—the Holocene. Our infrastructure, food systems and settlements were all built around that stability. Shake the foundations and the whole structure becomes precarious. The rate of change we are now seeing is unprecedented in human history. Ironically, that puts us, in many ways the most adaptable of species, among the most vulnerable species on the planet.
I want to end on a positive note. This is not a story of despair. Yes, the situation is urgent, but it is not hopeless. If we act boldly and act now, we can still turn it around. Let us redirect investment away from planetary-scale experiments of dubious feasibility. I am not saying we are currently investing in such work; I am saying we should shift our focus away from technologies that may or may not deliver benefits and may or may not deliver catastrophic side effects. Let us instead focus on realistic, viable solutions that we already know work. Let us prioritise emissions cuts, the restoration of nature and behavioural shifts. Let us resist the easy temptation of silver bullets and choose instead the hard but honest work of transition. What is at stake is not just the climate, but our shared future. It is about not just statistics but the stories of people, places and ecosystems that deserve to survive and thrive.
I will finish by quoting the American farmer, poet and activist Wendell Berry, who said that the
“care of the earth is our most ancient and most worthy and, after all, our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it, and to foster its renewal, is our only legitimate hope.”
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
It is important to set the debate and the e-petition in the context of the last couple of weeks. Last weekend saw another hottest day of the year on record, triggering an official heatwave and accompanied by an amber heat health warning, which means that because of high temperatures significant impacts are likely across health and social care services, including a rise in deaths, particularly among those aged 65 and over and people with health conditions. The Met Office puts the chance of us seeing another 40° weather event at 50:50, with a 45° day on the cards in the current climate. That is like an average summer day in Death Valley. I cannot imagine how the people and the natural environment in my constituency or the rest of the UK could cope with that.
As well as record-breaking temperatures, the weekend brought an increase in the threat of greater destabilisation in the middle east, with escalating conflict between Israel and the US and Iran. Unsurprisingly, on Sunday night oil prices soared to their highest since President Trump’s return to office, as the energy markets digested the news of the attacks on nuclear facilities in Iran. We do not yet know whether the situation in the middle east will lead to an oil supply shock. The Iranian Parliament has threatened to close the strait of Hormuz, which would choke the flow of oil from the region. Ordinary people will once again face volatile prices, hitting their pockets, as energy becomes more expensive and the cost of living is exacerbated.
Over just one weekend, we have seen our vulnerability to extreme weather conditions as a result of our failure to tackle climate change, and our vulnerability as a result of our dependence on global fossil fuels supply and prices. That underlines, once again, our need to strengthen our home-grown energy security and reduce our polluting emissions by accelerating investment in renewables and clean, green energy. Our emissions are not falling fast enough, and we are not on track to meet our legally binding climate targets. The world is set to surpass 1.5° of warming in the next decade. That is the context in which the petition was brought forward.
We need to address the root causes of climate breakdown, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said. The Climate Change Committee was clear last year that only a third of the emissions reductions required to achieve the country’s climate targets are currently covered by credible plans. Although it is true that our emissions are now less than half the levels they were in 1990, largely due to the phase-out of coal and the ramping up of renewables, we will now need ambitious action not just in the energy sector but across transport, buildings, industry and agriculture. The plans left by the previous Government did not deliver enough action, so we must do more. Nevertheless, even with aggressive investment in renewables and actions to decarbonise key sectors, we will still have to deal with residual emissions from heavy industries, particularly aviation, shipping and steel.
The balanced pathway, developed in the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget, tries to reduce emissions across all sectors of the economy as far as credibly possible, in line with cost effectiveness and feasibility constraints, minimising the use of engineered removals. However, even the committee recognises that we need to go beyond cutting emissions and to start work on the engineered removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. That is why removals are part of the Government’s net zero strategy.
As we have heard, geo-engineering refers to deliberate, large-scale projects to reduce carbon and cool the Earth’s climate system to address climate change. In greenhouse gas removal terms, that also includes direct air carbon capture and storage and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, some of which we are already using. We have seen sizeable investments from the Government into carbon capture storage. That could accommodate large-scale BECCS and DACCS, which clearly will be dependent on carbon capture and storage, but that is a measure of last resort for those hard-to-decarbonise sectors.
Living in South Cambridgeshire, I am close to the border with Cambridge. Since 2019, under climate expert Professor Sir David King, the University of Cambridge has been undertaking some important research into greenhouse gases at the Centre for Climate Repair. Among other things, it has been looking at something that brings climate and nature approaches together into balance again, such as marine biomass regeneration, which aims to restore whale populations, and ocean biomass to boost nutrient recycling and phytoplankton growth, because healthier oceans can naturally absorb more carbon dioxide and support global climate goals.
The centre has also been looking at the role of giant kelp, which grows rapidly and captures large amounts of carbon dioxide. When it sinks to the ocean floor, it stores carbon for the long term, offering a powerful, nature-based carbon removal method. Those are just two of the types of approaches that are being investigated. Quite rightly, the Government funded an independent review of greenhouse gas removal approaches, led by former MP Dr Alan Whitehead, covering nature-based solutions and engineered removals, such as direct air capture.
We saw in the Government’s response to the e-petition that they are currently working with the British Standards Institution to develop greenhouse gas removal methodologies, some of which may use sustainable biomass and require coming up with biomass sustainability criteria. There are some ways in which we could see greenhouse gas removal as a kind of guardrail for helping to decarbonise the atmosphere.
The e-petition also makes reference to solar radiation modification, which is an area that causes more concern. The Government have announced that they are not in favour of using SRM and have no plans for its full deployment. That position was made clear by the Minister in January, who said that the ongoing SRM research is for modelling only. The Government’s views on SRM are in accordance with those of the Liberal Democrats; we think it should not go to full deployment. We also think that the money invested in SRM research could have been better allocated to other measures for dealing with nature-based removal. I agree with Professor Mike Hulme that the cost of the research is an extraordinary amount of taxpayer money to invest in speculative technology. He is right to say, as I have already said, that the money could be better spent on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Geo-engineering is not a silver bullet. It must never be used as an excuse to delay decarbonisation through embracing and investing in renewables. We must remember that the first stop in our fight against climate change and securing energy security is investment in the transition to renewable and clean energy. Any amount of greenhouse gas removal will ultimately compromise the fight against climate change. As Dr Vaughan from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change said:
“SRM methods do not address the causes of climate change”.
However, a blanket ban on geo-engineering, as the motion proposes, would be short-sighted and self-defeating as we explore the other methods that I have discussed. Let us therefore champion governance built on transparency for any kind of research and standards in geo-engineering and climate action, which is ambitious and grounded in our transition to home-grown clean, green energy.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am pleased to respond to this brief debate on geo-engineering and the environment, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on starting the debate. I agree that solar radiation management would be a reckless experiment that risks all our futures.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) used the opportunity to speak about climate change. Although she and I probably disagree profoundly about the wisdom of the net zero target and the plan to decarbonise the whole grid by 2030, I am sure she opposes, as I do, the giant solar and battery farms that the Government want to impose on both our constituencies and most of the east of England.
My party’s position on SRM is clear. We oppose any attempts to seed the sky, and every effort must be made to be respectful of nature and our planet. Chasing such hare-brained scientific schemes to interfere with the climate and the atmosphere will not give us answers to any live public policy dilemmas. The Met Office has confirmed that we do not have enough evidence to understand how effective geo-engineering like SRM might be, and we do not know what unintended consequences might occur for human and environmental health.
Ministers have said there are no plans to fund experimentation with solar radiation modification, but public concern was prompted by the Advanced Research and Innovation Agency offering £56.8 million of public money to examine climate cooling theory. It is important to say that the research does not, as far as I am aware, include any practical attempts to manipulate the climate, but was a study in relation to the theory of these methods.
Having been very clear about the Conservative position, I invite the Minister to provide a clear statement that the Government will not support SRM. Given the concern expressed by the public through the petition and the members of the public attending today, I am sure she will want to give everybody an unambiguous reassurance that that is indeed the case and that the Government will not come forward with such methods.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on leading the debate and on showing respect for the notion behind the petition, because that is not always the case when people come and present views. I hope the petitioners feel that she has done justice to their stance.
I will set out what we are doing to tackle the issues highlighted in the petition. A lot of the concerns that have been raised today and over the last few weeks have been driven by recent research proposals to explore climate cooling technologies, as well as the media coverage that that has caused, and I will come on to those concerns in a moment.
Geo-engineering is a term commonly used to refer to two groups of technologies, as has been mentioned: greenhouse gas removals and solar radiation modification. Those are two very separate, very different approaches to addressing climate change, and the UK has two very separate, very different positions on their use. Greenhouse gas removals actively remove greenhouse gases—predominantly carbon dioxide—from the atmosphere for highly durable storage, resulting in negative emissions. They are vital to achieving net zero, and we support their deployment. Solar radiation modification, on the other hand, describes a set of interventions that aim to cool the earth, largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I receive regular communication from constituents asking me for my opinion on the UK’s involvement in chemtrails and geo-engineering. Will the Minister reassure us that chemtrails are actually condensation trails and nothing to do with solar radiation management, and that the UK Government have not deployed SRM techniques and have no plans to do so?
Kerry McCarthy
I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend. I have received quite a lot of correspondence on that, which MPs have passed on from their constituents. I have answered written questions—which are in the public domain—and replied to queries on both those points. I will try to express as clearly and vehemently as I can that we have no plans for SRM.
On the supposed chemtrails issue, that is a term used by some people who claim that the white trails seen behind high-altitude aircraft on clear days contain undisclosed chemical agents intended for a covert atmospheric spraying programme. They are, in fact, as my hon. Friend said, contrails, which form when warm, moist aircraft exhaust fumes mix with cold air at altitude. Under certain atmospheric conditions, contrails can persist and spread out to form cirrus-like clouds before disappearing. There is no deliberate spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for climate modification. We are not in favour of SRM and have no plans to change that position; I will say more on that in a moment, but first I want to add a little more on greenhouse gas removals.
Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the five missions of this Government, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero across the economy by 2050. I note the comments from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) about the UK being off track to do that. We will be publishing our carbon budget delivery plan by October; as she said, the previous Government were taken to court for failing to produce adequate policies to match the ambition. Obviously, there is no point in setting targets unless they can be delivered. We will set out our plan in due course, and then talk about the seventh carbon budget and meeting our nationally determined contributions.
We must do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—that is our starting point. We need that effort to be shared across all Government Departments, and we need everyone to play a role.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I hope this is not too much of a diversion, but the Minister will know that mains gas is 6p per kWh, largely imported and certainly a carbon fuel, while renewable energy is selling at 24p per kWh. We cannot get the public behind us as long as the environmental tariffs are on the renewable energy and not on the carbon fuel. May I have her opinion on that?
Kerry McCarthy
I will not be tempted too far down that path, other than to say that it is very much on our radar. We know that renewables are the cheaper option, but that needs to be reflected in the prices that people are charged. Today, we announced measures in our industrial strategy to bring down energy prices for industry as part of industrial decarbonisation, but on the consumer side it is a work in progress, and the hon. Gentleman can expect to hear more soon.
The starting point is reducing emissions. We know that emissions are hard to abate in some sectors, and that we will not be able to do it fully. Greenhouse gas removal technologies will therefore be important to balance those residual emissions. That is recognised internationally by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by our independent Climate Change Committee, whose latest advice to Government for setting the seventh carbon budget modelled around 36 megatonnes a year of engineered removals by 2050 to help us reach net zero.
Greenhouse gas removal approaches fall broadly into two categories: nature-based approaches, such as afforestation; and engineering-based approaches, such as direct air carbon capture and storage, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering.
I know that both the hon. Members for South Cotswolds and for South Cambridgeshire are passionate about nature-based approaches, which can play an important role in removing and storing carbon dioxide at scale, while delivering a range of additional environmental improvements, such as improvements in biodiversity, air quality and soil health. Those co-benefits are important, too.
We are acting on nature-based approaches. In March, we announced the creation of the Western forest, the first new national forest in over 30 years. It will see 20 million trees planted across the west of England in the coming years, which I very much welcome as a Bristol MP. We also plan to expand nature-rich habitats, such as wetlands and peat bogs, including restoring hundreds of thousands of hectares of peatland—we also seek to promote such work internationally.
We are in the middle of London Climate Action Week, and many visitors from Brazil are talking about what they seek to do for their tropical forests’ “forever facility” at COP30. I was excited to hear what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said about whales and giant kelp, as I have been talking to my officials about the role they play—it is good to have scientific back-up for my views. During London Climate Action Week, we are focusing on the important role of the voluntary carbon and nature markets in securing investment for blue carbon and our forests.
However, we know that nature-based approaches need to be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale necessary for us to meet our targets. Many countries agree with us on the important role that GGRs will play, and large-scale removal projects are currently operating or being planned around the world. We are also committed to supporting the deployment of engineered GGRs.
Access to carbon capture, usage and storage infrastructure is vital for many GGR technologies, and the Government are supporting the development of the CCUS network by allocating £9.4 billion in capital budgets over the spending review period. The network needs regulation, and we have an established environmental regulatory regime, with several regulators evaluating the environmental impact of GGR and CCUS projects.
Any GGR project deployed in the UK must comply with the relevant regulations and planning processes to ensure it is managed responsibly and that any environmental impacts are addressed, including impacts on biodiversity, pollution and local communities. We will continue to work with the necessary Departments, regulators and other public bodies to ensure that the UK’s regulatory environment is well placed to support the deployment of GGRs without causing environmental harm.
We take the integrity of removals very seriously. A robust GGR standard, including monitoring, reporting and verification, will be crucial in instilling public and investor confidence that removals through engineered GGR projects are genuine and verifiable. In other words, when someone says they have removed 1 tonne of CO2, at least 1 net tonne of CO2 must have been removed from the atmosphere once emissions relating to the entire process are taken into account, and we have commissioned the British Standards Institution to develop those assessment methodologies.
Although the petition refers to geo-engineering in a broader sense, solar radiation modification is possibly why it has attracted so many signatures. As I have said, SRM is a set of technologies that could cool the Earth, largely by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. However, the consequences of SRM are currently poorly understood, with significant uncertainty about the possible risks and impacts of deployment.
I make it clear for the record that the Government are not deploying solar radiation modification and have no plans to do so. There will be no spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for SRM, geo-engineering or climate remediation. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.
However, we do need to understand the potential risks and impacts of SRM. We have a very clear commitment not to deploy it, but we need to understand what would happen if other people chose to. That includes engaging with the Met Office Hadley Centre climate programme, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, the coverage of whose climate cooling research programme has triggered some of the concerns we are talking about today.
ARIA is an independent research body that was set up by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Although it is sponsored by that Government Department, it has complete autonomy on its project choices, which goes to the point about whether that is the best use of public money, as ARIA is responsible for its own choices. It is conducting cautious, controlled research aimed at improving the understanding of SRM risks and impacts, but it is not deploying SRM technologies. I say again that its research will not release any toxic materials, nor will it alleviate the urgent need for increased decarbonisation efforts. There is no substitute for decarbonisation, which is why we are pressing on with our missions for clean power and net zero.
The science is clear that, without rapid action, we risk irreversible damage to the planet’s biosphere. To halt global warming, the world needs to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the UK’s emissions. I hope I have reassured the hon. Members present, and the constituents they represent, that the Government are not deploying SRM technologies and have no plans to do so, and that the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas removal technologies—the other wing of geo-engineering—will continue to be monitored as those technologies scale up in the UK.
Dr Savage
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for highlighting possible solutions, particularly the ocean-based solutions that are very dear to my heart.
This debate seems to be one of those rare occasions where we find multi-party consensus. I am tremendously reassured to hear that the Government have no plans to deploy SRM in this country. It was interesting to hear a bit more about the work of ARIA, and I trust that its work will not open a door. Humanity has form, and once we know that something is possible, we are not always very good at holding ourselves back from deploying it. I trust that there will always be the utmost transparency, and I am very reassured to hear about the Government’s work with the British Standards Institution to ensure full transparency and accountability in the work done in that domain.
I will wrap up with a personal reflection. During my years of rowing solo across oceans to raise awareness of our climate and nature issues, I learned the hard way that we cannot fight mother nature. We cannot flout her laws and expect to win. Ultimately, she always has the final word, and the wiser path is to work with her. I hope that we will continue to emphasise nature-based solutions, as we can never go wrong with those. I fully appreciate that this is a climate emergency and that urgent action is needed, but let us not forget that mother nature can also be our greatest ally. We urgently need to act, not with hubris, but with humility, courage and care for the wellbeing of future generations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 701963 relating to geo-engineering and the environment.
Transport
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Cadbury
I also thank the Secretary of State for the decisive action she has taken to address the causes of HS2’s cost overruns. We look forward to having Mark Wild and the Rail Minister at our Committee very shortly.
I actually want to celebrate something that HS2’s leadership should be proud of: the work they have done on skills and workforce innovation. They have provided best-practice work that the construction industry and transport projects can learn from, and in fact are learning from. However, I urge the Secretary of State to get her Department to learn from countries such as France and Spain, which have managed to deliver extensive high-speed rail projects to time and at a fraction of the cost of HS2 here in the UK.
Heidi Alexander
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her comments. She is right to recognise the excellent work that HS2 has done on skills and the workforce. We have over 300,000 people working on this project at the moment, and I think that HS2 has done good work on opening up opportunities, whether through apprenticeships for the next generation or through the supply chain. I will heed my hon. Friend’s advice about learning from the speed and ease with which other countries deliver infrastructure projects.
[Official Report, 18 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 382.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander):
Heidi Alexander
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her comments. She is right to recognise the excellent work that HS2 has done on skills and the workforce. We have over 30,000 people working on this project at the moment, and I think that HS2 has done good work on opening up opportunities, whether through apprenticeships for the next generation or through the supply chain. I will heed my hon. Friend’s advice about learning from the speed and ease with which other countries deliver infrastructure projects.
UK Modern Industrial Strategy
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Today the Government have published and laid before Parliament their industrial strategy.
The UK’s modern industrial strategy sets out our 10-year plan to transform business investment, grow the industries of the future, deliver economic growth and put more money in people’s pockets to deliver our plan for change.
The strategy focuses on the high-growth potential sectors that will drive prosperity now and in the future: advanced manufacturing; professional and business services; clean energy; creative industries; digital and technology; financial services; life sciences; and defence. In tandem with the industrial strategy, the Government are today publishing on www.gov.uk sector plans covering the first five of these sectors, with others to follow in the coming months.
The industrial strategy follows on from the publication in November 2024 of our Green Paper entitled “Invest 2035: the UK’s modern Industrial Strategy”. Following publication of the Green Paper, the Government have considered the views of thousands of stakeholders from business, industry, academia, unions, local leaders and the public.
Today’s publication sets out how we will tackle barriers to investment and growth and make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business.
[HCWS725]
Industrial Strategy: Creative Industries Sector Plan
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I am delighted to update the House on the publication of the Government’s Creative Industries Sector Plan. This is a central part of our industrial strategy and our plan for change to drive long-term economic growth across the United Kingdom.
The creative industries are a dynamic growth engine for the UK economy. They contributed 2.4 million jobs and £124 billion in gross value added in 2023 and generate knowledge spillovers that drive innovation and activity across the economy, while our creative clusters boost regional economic growth and create high-quality jobs.
This sector generates substantial economic output with strong potential for continued growth over the coming decades. Data, content, and creative services and experiences are the fastest growing areas of consumption, while new technologies, audience behaviours and international competition are transforming business models. Our world-class creative industries are uniquely placed to capitalise on these opportunities and our long-standing international comparative advantage.
This is why today we are publishing our sector plan that sets out how we will support the sector to grow over the next decade. By 2035, our goal is to make the UK the No. 1 destination for creativity and innovation in the world. We will boost the UK’s position as a global creative superpower and deliver new, high-quality jobs and regional growth.
For too long, the sector has not been given the recognition or backing it deserves. Investments have been seen as too risky, talent has been overlooked and policies and programmes have not reflected the ambition in the sector. Today, we are changing this, announcing £380 million in funding for the sector, including more than doubling my Department’s funding for the creative industries over the next spending review period. This includes £200 million for regions outside London and bespoke regional creative clusters to help businesses grow and talent thrive in every part of the UK; £25 million for new “CreaTech” research and development labs; plus screen, music and video games growth packages totalling up to £135 million.
We will champion the unique role of public service media for both growth and democracy. And we will ensure creators, entrepreneurs and innovators are at the heart of our future economy. In doing so, we will ensure the UK is recognised as the best place in the world to make and invest in film and TV, music, performing and visual arts, video games, advertising and beyond.
We are taking action to back our creators and are committed to ensuring they benefit from technological change. That means a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, builds trust, and opens the door to innovation across the creative sector. We also need to explore other ways to support the creators to license their content. A new creative content exchange, a trusted marketplace for selling, buying, licensing, and enabling permitted access to digitised cultural and creative assets could be part of the solution here.
The Government, working together with industry, is making clear choices to back our regions and back talent everywhere. This is just the beginning of a 10-year journey and our commitment to ensure that we maximise the opportunities and tackle the issues that have long held the sector back from reaching its full potential.
A copy of the “Creative Industries Sector Plan” will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Key Policies
Accelerate Innovation-led growth
UK Research and Innovation will lead efforts to significantly increase public funding for the creative industries, including support for commercialisation and tech adoption.
A £100 million investment in an ambitious next wave of creative clusters to accelerate R&D in new sub-sectors and locations across the UK.
A new creative content exchange as a marketplace for selling, buying, licensing and enabling permitted access to digitised cultural and creative assets.
Growth finance
A significant increase in support from the British Business Bank for the creative industries with debt and equity finance.
A new working group to tackle barriers to IP-backed lending in the creative industries.
An industry-led “single front door” for creative firms to access information on how to unlock private investment, alongside improved Government signposting to resources.
Skilled workforce
Greater flexibility for employers and learners via the new growth and Skills offer, continuing to consider the needs of small businesses.
Deliver a curriculum in England that readies young people for life and work, including in creative subjects and skills, following the independent curriculum and assessment review.
A Government and industry partnership to deliver a refreshed UK-wide £9 million creative careers service.
Trade and export
As committed to at the UK-EU Summit in May, we will support travel and cultural exchange, including the activities of touring artists.
UK Export Finance has up to £80 billion in financing capacity to support UK exports for industrial strategy sectors, including the creative industries.
Increase the number of creative trade missions and markets we target, building on traditional markets like the EU and the United States with fast-growing markets such as Asia-Pacific.
Frontier industries
New £75 million screen, and £30 million video games growth packages over the spending review period to develop and showcase UK screen content and support inward investment.
Up to £10 million per year for a music growth package to support emerging artists, alongside a new industry-led ticket levy on arena gigs to support the grassroots sector.
Co-funding, by Government and private investors including the Walt Disney Company, the Dana and Albert R. Broccoli Foundation and Sky, for the expansion of the National Film and Television School.
Taking action to support public service media, including through BBC Charter Review, to ensure a vibrant domestic screen sector and a BBC that continues to act as an engine of Creative Industries growth across the country.
City regions and clusters
The Government have identified 12 creative clusters across the UK where we will work with local leaders and devolved governments to drive growth.
A new £150 million creative places growth fund devolved to six mayoral strategic authorities to deliver tailored investment readiness support.
Champion London as a “creative industries supercluster”, with the Mayor investing over £10 million over the next four years alongside significant investments including East Bank and Smithfield sites.
[HCWS730]
London Coalition on Sustainable Sovereign Debt
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Today marks the launch of the London Coalition on Sustainable Sovereign Debt. The coalition, convened by the Sustainable Sovereign Debt Hub and funded by the Children’s investment Fund Foundation, will bring together private sector stakeholders and Government to find pragmatic solutions to more sustainable sovereign debt financing in developing economies. This will include progressing work on debt contract innovations for bonds and loans to promote transparency, orderly restructurings and more resilient borrowing. Jose Vinals and I will be co-chairs for the coalition. Jose, who will serve in his personal capacity, will be able to draw on his vast experience in both the public and private sectors, most recently as chairperson of Standard Chartered.
The coalition seeks to provide a more formal avenue to engage with private lenders on issues affecting both bonded and non-bonded lending, in order to develop and implement solutions that will ensure that developing economies can access steady, long-term investment from the private sector.
Recognising that the various industry bodies that represent private lenders are not mandated by their memberships to take forward many issues that arise on the global policy agenda, the London coalition seeks to bring together new collaborations among high-ambition private sector market participants to achieve its mission. It has been pleasing to see such interest from our private sector colleagues thus far.
The coalition’s main priorities include making debt contracts clearer and more transparent, improving the way loan terms respond to natural disasters, and addressing problems with group lending practices. In bringing together a wide range of private sector stakeholders, the coalition will tackle broader co-ordination challenges that often arise when restructuring non-bonded debt, with the aim of delivering better outcomes for both borrowers and lenders.
Encouraging fair and open debt restructuring, alongside more resilient borrowing practices, will enable emerging economies to make meaningful progress towards their climate and development goals. The coalition leverages the UK’s strengths in financial services, helping to reinforce its status as a global hub for development finance and supporting economic activity and investment across the country. Direct investment in emerging markets can also drive UK growth by opening new opportunities for British businesses—particularly in financial services—and strengthening trade relationships with rapidly expanding economies in an increasingly uncertain global landscape.
Tackling international sovereign debt challenges is aligned with the UK Government’s plan for change, driving global financial stability while fuelling economic growth and safeguarding national security. By supporting developing countries in managing their debts more sustainably, the UK helps unlock new opportunities for trade, innovation and investment—benefiting British businesses. This leadership not only opens doors to new markets, but helps prevent the kinds of crises that threaten peace and prosperity worldwide, reinforcing the UK’s standing as a champion of responsible finance and a trusted partner.
Looking ahead, the coalition will continue to work collaboratively to develop practical solutions and drive meaningful reform in how countries manage their debts. To achieve this, it will engage closely with a wide range of stakeholders across the official sector, the private sector and the third sector, ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented.
Through ongoing dialogue and partnership, the coalition aims to deliver tangible progress on sustainable sovereign debt financing and support the broader development and climate ambitions of emerging economies.
[HCWS728]
NHS Maternity and Neonatal Services
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am today announcing that I will be launching a national, independent investigation into maternity and neonatal care.
Although pregnancy and childbirth should be a time of joy, for some people this time can bring anxiety, harm or trauma and, in some cases, profound loss. I have listened to families who shared their experiences of unacceptable care, and they have shared with me the multitude of issues that exist across the system. It is clear that we are not listening as much as we should to women and their partners when they raise concerns—and for some women this is even worse, depending on their skin colour or language. We are not always identifying when things are going wrong in maternity and neonatal units quickly enough, and nor are we tackling these failings at the core. The system as a whole is then not supporting harmed or bereaved families when they rightly seek answers and accountability. Ultimately, we are not providing the care that families deserve. This is not the case across the board as many women receive excellent care. However, it is unacceptable that this is not the experience that all women have. We must urgently reset our approach to maternity and neonatal care.
That is why we are announcing this independent investigation: to understand the systemic issues behind why so many women, babies and families experience unacceptable care, and to rapidly put in place solutions to improve maternity safety and quality.
This will be a rapid investigation and will have two core roles. It will conduct urgent reviews, by the end of this year, of up to 10 trusts where there are specific issues. We will work with families and the NHS to develop criteria for selecting trusts.
Secondly, it will undertake a rapid, systemic investigation into maternity and neonatal care in England, reporting by December 2025. This will synthesise the findings and recommendations from all other reviews to recommend one set of national actions to drive the improvements needed to ensure high-quality care and that women are listened to. I will be engaging with families in determining the membership of the investigation team and its terms of reference.
I am also establishing a national maternity and neonatal taskforce, which I will chair. It will be made up of a breadth of independent clinical and international expertise, with family and charity representatives. It is imperative that this includes the voices of families who have experienced harm or loss, so I will also be continuing to meet families throughout the year. I will also ensure that membership is representative of those who can speak to the inequalities within maternal health.
The recommendations will inform the development of a new, national maternity and neonatal action plan, which we will develop with families. The action plan will lead to rapid improvement of maternity and neonatal quality and safety, and ensure that any families in the future who are harmed or bereaved will get answers about what happened, see that lessons are learnt and that there is accountability where appropriate.
In relation to calls for local reviews, I have informed families that this work will include a review into nine specific cases at University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust. I am currently discussing with Leeds families the best way to grip the challenges brought to light in that trust by their campaigning, reports in the media, and the latest Care Quality Commission report.
We must also act now to resolve the issues we know exist. Repeated inquiries have identified significant issues across services, from a lack of compassionate care, concerns over safety, and issues in culture and leadership, and there remain stark inequalities faced by women in deprived areas or of black and Asian ethnicity.
This is why, alongside the independent investigation, I am taking immediate measures to start changes so desperately needed. We are introducing measures to hold the system to greater account and improve transparency. The worst-performing trusts will be held to account by the NHS chief executive, to ensure that the necessary improvements are made faster and deeper. This year we will introduce a new early warning system, powered by a real-time data tool, to detect safety issues earlier and allow action to be taken more swiftly to improve outcomes.
To improve safety, we will roll out new best practice standards to tackle the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity. We are also taking action to reduce the stark and completely unacceptable inequalities in maternity care. We will deliver an anti-discrimination programme to support trust leadership, ensuring that all families and staff will experience an environment free from discrimination and racism, and benefit ethnic minority mothers. These actions will support our manifesto commitment to set a target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap.
Through the investigation, and these immediate actions, I want to challenge and support maternity and neonatal services to provide compassionate, high-quality care to all families at their most vulnerable and life-changing moments.
[HCWS726]
Terrorism Legislation: Codes of Practice
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
On 17 March 2025, the Government initiated a consultation on the codes of practice related to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. This consultation proposed several changes aimed at clarifying the use of these powers and the rights and protections of individuals subject to them. Additionally, where appropriate, it suggested additional safeguards to ensure the appropriate use of these powers. The consultation concluded on 27 April 2025.
The consultation process included a public consultation, made available on www.gov.uk, that invited comments from police forces, interest groups and the general public on the proposed changes. It also involved virtual events with frontline police officers who are trained and accredited to use schedules 7 and 3, ensuring that the codes, which detail how these powers should be used, are well understood by those who operate them.
The Government have meticulously reviewed the responses received and have today published their response. A copy of the response to the consultation has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available on www.gov.uk.
I am grateful to everyone who participated in this consultation, particularly the frontline officers who attended the Home Office’s events. With the publication of the response, we will proceed to amend the codes through secondary legislation at the next available opportunity.
[HCWS727]
Palestine Action: Proscription
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I have decided to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. A draft proscription order will be laid in Parliament on Monday 30 June. If passed, it will make it illegal to be a member of, or to invite support for, Palestine Action.
This decision is specific to Palestine Action and does not affect lawful protest groups and other organisations campaigning on issues around Palestine or the middle east.
The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton in the early hours of the morning on Friday 20 June is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action. The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this Government will not tolerate those who put that security at risk. Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the criminal investigation into this attack. It is important that this process is free from interference and that the police are allowed to carry out their important work gathering evidence and working to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Since its inception in 2020, Palestine Action has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, NATO, Five Eyes allies and the UK defence enterprise. Its activity has increased in frequency and severity since the start of 2024 and its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Palestine Action has also broadened its targets from the defence industry to include financial firms, charities, universities and Government buildings. Its activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000. This has been assessed through a robust, evidence-based process, by a wide range of experts from across Government, the police and the security services.
In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the Government. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022; and last year at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. The seriousness of these attacks includes the extent and nature of damage caused, including to targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public fleeing for safety and subjected to violence. The extent of damage across these three attacks alone, spreading the length and breadth of the UK, runs into the millions of pounds.
During Palestine Action’s attack against the Thales defence factory in Glasgow in 2022, the group caused over a million pounds-worth of damage, including to parts essential to submarines. The sheriff, in passing custodial sentences for the attackers’ violent crimes, spoke of the panic among staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown in the area where they were evacuating. He further recorded the extent of damage to legitimate business activities, which included “matters of nationwide security” and disputed the group’s claims that its actions were non-violent. The attacks at Elbit Systems in Bristol and Instro Precision in Kent remain sub judice. To avoid prejudicing future criminal trials, the Government will not comment on the specifics of these incidents.
Palestine Action has provided practical advice to assist its members with conducting attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property. In late 2023, Palestine Action released “The Underground Manual”. The document encourages the creation of cells; provides practical guidance on how to carry out activity against private companies and Government buildings on behalf of Palestine Action; and provides a link to a website that contains a map of specific targets across the UK. The manual encourages members to undertake operational security measures to protect the covert nature of their activity.
Through its media output, Palestine Action publicises and promotes its attacks involving serious property damage, as well as celebrating the perpetrators.
Palestine Action’s online presence has enabled the organisation to galvanise support, recruit and train members across the UK to take part in criminal activity and raise considerable funds through online donations. The group has a footprint in all 45 policing regions in the UK and has pledged to escalate its campaign.
It is vitally important that those seeking to protest peacefully, including pro-Palestinian groups, those opposing the actions of the Israeli Government, and those demanding changes in the UK’s foreign policy, can continue to do so. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy. Should Parliament vote to proscribe, that right will be unaffected.
What it will do is to enable law enforcement to effectively disrupt the escalating actions of this serious group. Only last month, Palestine Action claimed responsibility for an attack against a Jewish-owned business in north London, where the glass front of the building was smashed and the building and floor defaced with red-paint, including the slogan “drop Elbit”. Such incidents do not represent legitimate or peaceful protest. Regardless of whether this incident itself amounts to terrorism, such activity is clearly intimidatory and unacceptable. It is one that has been repeated many times by this organisation, at sites the length and breadth of the UK.
I have considered carefully the nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activity. Proscription represents a legitimate response to the threat posed by Palestine Action. The first duty of Government is to keep our country safe, which is the foundation of our plan for change.
Given significant public concern over recent activities by this group, including the incident in Brize Norton last week, and balancing the relevant considerations, I have decided to confirm this decision to proscribe to the House in advance of laying the relevant order.
[HCWS729]
Local Authority Governance
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Today, I am updating Parliament on the Government’s plans to review governance arrangements for local authorities in England. Our goal is to ensure that local communities have the right mechanisms to engage effectively with their councils.
In the English Devolution White Paper, the Government committed to establishing consistent and accountable structures across local government. We are considering which governance models available to local authorities will best support their decision-making processes and will provide more detail on this shortly.
The English Devolution White Paper also committed to creating new opportunities for communities to have a say in the future of their area and to play a part in improving it. To support this, we will review how local authorities can integrate community engagement into their core functions. We are keen to work with the sector to co-design an approach which balances the need for consistent structures with local flexibility.
This programme of reform will create fewer but more empowered councils, frontline councillors and partners working hand in glove with the communities they serve, and support preventative and early intervention approaches, which are critical to the sustainability of local government and in driving better outcomes in the neighbourhoods where local people are invested. Local people will know exactly where to take local problems and solutions, and can work with their frontline councillors to drive visible improvements in the places they are invested in.
When these reforms are implemented, alongside devolution to new regional mayors and strategic authorities, and local government reorganisation, they will ensure that the right powers are in the right places. Locally, they will mean that people across England, regardless of where they live, will be able to take issues or concerns to empowered frontline local councillors. These councillors will have a clear and accountable route to act on them, either through neighbourhood structures or by taking them to the cabinet member responsible for the issue.
Every place will benefit from our agenda to decentralise power from Whitehall to local leaders. People will see the impact in more regular bus services, more affordable housing, and the presence of local champions with regional influence or frontline councillors championing their neighbourhoods.
[HCWS731]
Live Music Industry: Support
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brennan of Canton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held recently with the live music industry about support for the sector.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government engage regularly with the live music sector on our shared goal of a sustainable grass-roots music ecosystem and to maximise opportunities for growth. Today we have published our Creative Industries Sector Plan as part of the industrial strategy, including up to £30 million for music. Ministers have recently convened two round tables with the live music industry to drive progress on the industry-led ticket levy, in addition to a round table on improving ticket resale and combating touts.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. This week, 200,000 people will gather at the world’s greatest live music event, but Glastonbury is simply the apex of the great pyramid of the UK’s live and electronic music sector, which generates over £6 billion for our economy and brings immeasurable pleasure to millions. The base of that pyramid is in danger of crumbling without due care and attention, so the Commons Culture Committee has asked me to head a fan-led review of live music in the coming months. Will my noble friend the Minister commit our Government to engaging seriously with the findings of that review and doing their bit to support our world-beating live music sector?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot think of anyone better than my noble friend to carry out this work. We welcome the launch of Parliament’s fan-led review of the live music industry and look forward to considering its findings. From the industry’s own recent fan-led review, we know that fans are deeply invested in supporting live music, particularly local artists and independent venues, but rising financial pressures, dynamic pricing concerns and the closure of beloved venues threaten long-term sustainability. We recognise those same challenges, which is why today, as I mentioned previously, we have announced a major investment to drive growth in the UK music industry.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, will the Government, particularly in the light of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, ensure that existing music venues are fully protected in areas that face redevelopment? If the agent of change principle were to be incorporated by government into primary legislation, that would be very welcome.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that new developments should be able to be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities such as music venues. Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. We want to enable new developments such as housing to coexist with culture and infrastructure such as music venues.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us some undertaking that the Government will look at well-being and things such as mental health that go with participation in live music, particularly at accessible events? If we lose sight of that linkage, we are losing much of the benefit.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My own health is considerably enhanced by being able to attend events. From a government perspective, it is key that all children have the chance to realise their musical talent and that music events are open to all. That is why the Government are working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged students.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Earl made an excellent point about the agent of change. The ad hoc committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the honour to chair, made a specific recommendation that the agent of change should be enshrined in law. Without that, real pressure is put on existing music venues, which suffered terribly, along with the hospitality sector more generally, during Covid. Will the Minister look favourably on enshrining the agent of change into law to ensure a vibrant future for existing music venues?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are committed to developing a truly plan-led system with a policy framework that is accessible and understandable to all. To that end, we intend to consult on a set of national policies for decision-making later this year. As I mentioned in a previous response, we want to enable new developments such as housing to co-exist with cultural infrastructure such as music venues. I understand the frustration behind the noble Baroness’s question.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
The Minister’s response is very welcome. Although the agent of change principle was introduced—I played some part in that in my role in the other place—local councils still do not seem to be getting the message. Does she accept that the money in music these days is in venues and events and therefore that people need to be able to learn their trade in small venues? Otherwise, our enormously successful music industry will not maintain its position. Nobody starts by playing at The O2; they start in local venues. Can we get that message through to local authorities?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think that many local authorities recognise the significance of grass-roots music venues, not least as a way of attracting people to live in their areas. The Government are also of the view of my noble friend that supporting grass-roots music is vital. To that end, we are providing £2.5 million for Arts Council England’s Supporting Grassroots Music fund for the coming year.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, one way in which the next generation of talent develops its skills and craft is through international touring, which has been so important in building fan bases and growing skills. The mention of artists touring in the post-Brexit UK-EU summit was very welcome, but it is not clear what next steps are being taken to resolve the absence of touring arrangements in the post-Brexit agreements.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct that it is a positive sign that it was mentioned in the announcement following the UK-EU summit on 19 May. Both the UK and the European Commission are committed to supporting travel and cultural exchange, including the activities of touring artists. We are continuing to engage constructively with the European Commission to address the challenges that touring artists and their support staff face, while respecting regulatory frameworks on both sides. My colleague, Sir Chris Bryant, has held a number of bilateral meetings with other countries and the Commission to try to move this forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Given that music has disappeared from many state schools, what are the Government doing to bring music back, particularly to primary and secondary school children?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child has access to quality creative education, including music. As noble Lords will be aware, we launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which seeks to deliver a broader curriculum so that young people do not miss out on music and the arts. The Government are also working with Young Sounds UK on a four-year music opportunities pilot to break down barriers to music education for disadvantaged and SEND students.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the sector plan which the Minister mentioned today. As that recognises on page 50:
“Grassroots venues are struggling to break even”,
why are the Government making their job even harder with their changes to business rates and national insurance contributions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the business rates question, I will throw back to the noble Lord this Government’s fiscal inheritance. We recognise that grass-roots venues have faced a challenging set of circumstances in recent years, and that is why we are committed to working with industry to maximise the uptake and impact of the voluntary ticket levy.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a governor of an independent school—and give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Watts (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Can the Minister hear the noise from today’s discussion, in which Members are raising all sorts of problems that the cultural industries face? Do we not need a complete strategy that deals with all these issues, and do we not need to be clear about how we are going to support the arts and culture in the UK?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for allowing me again to draw attention to the fact that the department has today published its Creative Industries Sector Plan. That identifies the music industry and other parts of the cultural sector as a high-growth subsector and sets out the actions from the Government and industry to drive music sector growth. As a number of noble Lords have highlighted, this has to include action on grass-roots music, which is the platform on which so many people start their careers.
Official Development Assistance: Vulnerable Children
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to mitigate the impact on vulnerable children of cuts to official development assistance.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, to fund a necessary increase in defence spending, the Government have taken the decision in the current fiscal circumstances to reduce our official development assistance budget. We remain fully committed to tackling global challenges and, as a ratifier of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Government will continue to champion the promotion, protection and realisation of children’s rights at home and overseas.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming that final commitment, I ask the Minister whether she agrees that children who have access to nutrition, education and health services are the very bedrock on which safe societies and strong economies are built? If so, can she give positive consideration to UNICEF UK’s call this month for the Government to allocate at least 25% of ODA to child-focused programmes, because it considers that that could moderate the impact of the Government’s cuts?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness again and should just say how well regarded she remains in the department; when I saw this Question this morning, there were many kind comments about her. She is absolutely right to remind us of the importance of this, and particularly of nutrition. The UK led the recent Nutrition for Growth Summit in Paris compact on the integration of nutrition. We are currently working through the allocations, exactly who will get how much funding and how that will affect our programming, but I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us of the importance of this.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register on UNICEF UK and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. Does the Minister recognise that the children who are most affected by problems in education, health and the other aspects that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raises are those who are suffering from conflict and displacement? Is the Minister aware that, last week, the Prime Minister received a letter from a number of individuals with lots of experience in this field and in security and defence, highlighting the fact that it is important for us to build up our hard power but it is not sufficient? Will there be a dedicated budget for conflict prevention and peacebuilding in the revised ODA settlement, and will the forthcoming national security strategy make a clear commitment to this country playing a role in conflict prevention and peacebuilding worldwide?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I cannot speak for what will be in the national security strategy, but my noble friend is absolutely right in what he says about conflict. We will continue to support work on conflict prevention, with, as the Chamber will want to know, a particular focus on the impact on children, who often feel the brunt when conflict happens. They are, sadly, still subject to horrific violence, including sexual violence, in conflict, and this is something that the UK will never take its eye off.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Government regularly provide updates on aid to Afghanistan with a special focus on women and girls, and these are very welcome. Can the Minister say what progress has been achieved in the secondary education of girls, and whether the newly appointed special envoy, Mr Richard Lindsay, will be pursuing this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We continue to support work on education, particularly in Afghanistan. As the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know, it is a particularly difficult context in which to operate, and the impact, especially on girls, is profound. We will continue to work through our partners in Afghanistan to do whatever we can to support girls in that horrendous situation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we know that the impact of conflict, climate and other world crises has a disproportionate impact on girls and education in particular. We also know that by far the best return to the pound that we spend on development partnership assistance is when we invest in education in the most needed areas. Why, therefore, have the Government deprioritised education and girls’ education, and why is it not being protected and will now be facing a 40% cut?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The ODA budget faces a 40% cut because we have decided to spend more on the Ministry of Defence, and I think everybody here is aware of that. The best buy in education is actually not through programming or delivery of education; it is through policy change in-country. What we need, and what countries are telling us they want, is more of an emphasis on partnership rather than paternalism. They wish to undertake more of the delivery of education of their own children, and I think we can all understand and respect why that would be. We have huge amounts of expertise, we have our university partnerships and we have many, many ways in which we can support countries to deliver that quality education. In those most difficult circumstances that he refers to, we continue to support global partnerships focused on education, including Education Cannot Wait, which delivers that emergency education in refugee settings, in those places that are very difficult and where other agencies would find it very difficult to operate.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has my sympathy. She confirmed in her opening Answer that being in government often involves difficult decisions, and that this Government have chosen to slash the international aid budget in order to help support the defence and security of our country. This is a difficult choice, which we support; a choice that we do not support was the deal to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. It has been reported that hundreds of millions of pounds from the noble Baroness’s already reduced aid budget are to be used partially to fund this deal. Will she tell the House if this is true and, if so, how much is being spent on this choice?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are here to talk about the impact on children. The noble Lord has every right to ask whatever he wants, but that is a slightly strange choice when we have had no end of opportunities to talk about that and we have a debate on it a week today. However, it is his choice. The deal with the Chagos Islands is about securing our nation’s relationship with the United States, and it is about our security and intelligence. This week of all weeks, he should not need me to explain to him why that matters so much.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I welcome the recent launch of the British Overseas NGOs for Development’s Faith in Development Working Group. Member organisations such as Tearfund, Islamic Relief Worldwide and World Jewish Relief, together with secular NGOs, are seeking to create a platform to facilitate, encourage and promote faith actors in international development and humanitarian work. What plans does the Minister’s department have to consult and collaborate with faith communities and faith-based organisations, precisely to mitigate the impact of ODA cuts on vulnerable children?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Faith-based organisations have a huge role to play. This morning, I visited GSK’s vaccine laboratory in Stevenage to talk about our Gavi pledge, which is coming up on Wednesday. Faith-based organisations are fundamental in ensuring that vaccination is taken up in some of the most difficult places to operate in the world. I would be very happy to work with the organisation that the right reverend Prelate refers to—I have not met it yet—to see how we can work together.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of how to help children through their education is by encouraging businesses to grow in the countries where it is most needed? Will she look to how we can support UK businesses in that journey, as many are trying their level best against a lot of challenges? If we could work together, maybe in the future we will not need the aid that is delivered.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is the aim of many countries that we are working in. They want to move on from being an aid recipient and be a partner with us, not least in the area of business and economic growth. Relationships, such as on infrastructure and in higher education, are starting to develop. I would like the FCDO to play a leading role in this. As we move towards a change in our approach, having that expertise here in the UK to facilitate those relationships, in finance or technology, is exactly the direction that we should be going in.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, as there is a lull, I might take an opportunity to ask the Minister a question. The Department for Work and Pensions has stated that, as a result of the planned benefit cuts, an extra 50,000 UK children will be pushed into poverty. Can the Minister explain why that outcome is acceptable to the Government?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, that would be straying slightly beyond my remit on development. However, I would point out that all of us ought to be deeply concerned about the lack of attendance at school, about mental health affecting too many of our young people and about too often their inability to access the world of work at an early age. We know that that scarring can last a lifetime. The work that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing is about supporting properly those young people into careers so that they can lead fulfilling, healthy lives.
Planning: Energy Efficiency and Fire Safety
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to work with regional mayors and local authority leaders to ensure that energy efficiency and fire safety measures are central to planning frameworks.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw your attention to my register of interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s expertise to help with some of these issues as we debate our planning for the future. She raises valid and important points. All new homes must comply with energy-efficiency and fire safety measures as set out in the building regulations, once planning permission has been obtained. While government does not comment on or routinely intervene in local authority decision-making, we trust our local councillors and local authorities to deliver local plans that carefully consider both energy efficiency and fire safety. As we move into the new era of strategic plans, I am sure that our mayors will take carbon reduction in new homes, and fire safety, as seriously as our councillors currently do.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
I sincerely thank my noble friend the Minister. Today, millions in the UK still live in buildings with unresolved fire issues, many of which are being targeted for retrofit under decarbonisation plans. For energy efficiency, the cheapest fuel is the fuel you do not use at all. Local leaders and regional mayors need a clear mandate and resources to ensure that fire safety is integrated into renovation and new build. From 2020 to today, there have been over 230 fires related to cladding alone. How will the Government ensure that fire risk assessments are mandatory for retrofit and new build and that planning frameworks are updated accordingly?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for making that point so powerfully. We all know how urgent this work is. Retrofit work in support of decarbonisation must comply with building regulations, including those concerning fire safety. As the regulations state, the building’s compliance should be no worse than it was before the work started. No additional measures are needed to ensure that fire safety is integrated into retrofit. Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, a fire risk assessment will be completed for all new builds, other than individual private homes. Building regulations require building control bodies to consult the local fire and rescue authority to ensure compliance with the order. There is a further requirement under the order for a responsible person to review the fire risk assessment for those premises where material changes, such as a significant retrofit, are made to the building in question.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the National Audit Office estimated that the work to which the noble Baroness just referred will not be completed until 2035. Is that not far too late a date for people to live in unsafe buildings? What action are the Government going to take to bring that date forward?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord paid full attention to the remediation action plan that the Government published, and we want to move this forward as quickly as possible as there is a lot of work to be done on remediation. My honourable colleague in the other place, Minister Alex Norris, is moving forward the remediation action plan as quickly as possible, as we have to make sure that we get on with this now. Eight years is far too long not to move this forward, but we are getting on with the job now and cracking on with it as quickly as we can.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, in light of the Chancellor’s recent announcement of £39 billion to help boost social and affordable housing, will the Government work with local authorities to ensure that all these new homes are built with consideration of energy efficiency and appropriate fire safety measures? Will the Government also consider adapting these homes, or at least some of them, for disabled people, as it is easier and much more cost effective to do this at the construction phase?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. We will bring forward the future homes standard in the autumn—we are consulting on it at the moment—which will ensure that new homes are net-zero ready and that householders benefit from lower energy bills, with high levels of energy efficiency and solar PV. We made an announcement last week that the standard will include solar panels, which we expect to be installed on the majority of new homes. I have spoken to my noble friend on her point about disabled facilities, and we understand the frustrations of, for example, those applying for disabled facilities grants. The more we can make sure that homes are fit for everybody in our community, the better it will be. We are considering this further as we develop our housing strategy, which is due to be published later this year.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the cost of cladding remediation is up to £40,000 per flat. Can the Minister tell the House how leaseholders, who are not eligible for grant funding from the Government and contractors, will be able to afford the remediation of homes which insurance companies believe are not safe to live in?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We are working very closely with leaseholder bodies to understand their issues. I understand the difficulties, and we are making sure that those responsible for the buildings are held to account and that they support leaseholders to get the work done. I am still talking to leaseholders, and we will bring forward more action on their general conditions in the leasehold Bill later this year. I know that this is a very difficult issue for them, and we continue to work with them on it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. The building safety regulator has a critical role to play to ensure fire safety, particularly for high-rise buildings. However, it does not currently have the capacity to deliver its role, creating huge delays to many housing projects. Can the Minister give the House a date when the substantial delays of the building safety regulator will be addressed?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not know if the noble Lord was in the Chamber when I spoke about this last week, but we are aware of the building safety regulator’s difficulties. We have put in additional funding and are working with the regulator to improve performance, particularly on the gateway issues. It is very important that we get this balance right. We want our buildings to be safe, and the building safety regulator must be able to do its job properly. We also want to move things on for the development industry so that developers can get through the gateways as quickly as they can; both things are important. I will not give the noble Lord an exact date—I do not suppose he would have expected me to—but we are working with the building safety regulator to move this on as quickly as possible.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted about the solar panels measures, because I have been asking questions of this Government about the fact that locally, in east Devon, there is about to be a new town of 20,000 people with not a single solar panel on any of the buildings. How tough will the Government be in seeing that the solar panels regulations are actually carried out by entrepreneurs who have no desire whatever to put them on roofs.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As this is incorporated into the planning process, it will become part of how planning is done so that it will be put in from the outset. We will accelerate the specific types of infrastructure, including making sure that, as people put planning applications in, we look at them to make sure that buildings are fit for purpose, do not need retrofitting and will have solar panels and, where appropriate, ground source heat pumps. Our commitment is to get to net zero as quickly as we can while making sure the planning system is fit for purpose in delivering that across the country.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the issue of sustainable energy concerns us all, particularly with the advent of a large number of applications for solar farms. Is the Minister aware that, on fire safety, there are deep concerns among the population because of the lithium battery plants that have to go with these solar farms? Where other solar farms have been created around the world, there have been considerable dangers, and fires have occurred that have put local populations in some jeopardy. Does the Minister have any comment on that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the question the noble Lord is asking. I remind the House that 0.1% of the country has solar farms. I understand that that is not the question he was asking, but it is raised very frequently in the House. I will take back the issue of lithium batteries and solar farms and send him a Written Answer.
Business Rates Reform
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential impact of business rates reform on business improvement districts.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I refer the House to my registered interests, including that I run two business improvement districts.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are creating a fairer business rates system that protects high streets and supports investment. We do not anticipate that these business rates reforms will have any direct impact on business improvement districts.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Business improvement districts—BIDs—are vital to local economies and high street regeneration, and rely heavily on the business rates system. Will my noble friend commit to consulting them directly through bodies such as Association of Town & City Management before making any future reforms? As government services move more fully online, will he back online voting for bid ballots in order to keep the process accessible, efficient and fit for the digital age?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and pay tribute to his work and his expertise in this area. As he knows, business improvement districts play an important role in improving the local trading environment in our high streets and town centres, investing over £154 million each year in their local areas.
On the consultation on future reforms, my honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary, together with Treasury officials, has engaged extensively with stakeholders to codesign a fairer, more modern business rates system. I know that the Association of Town & City Management, which my noble friend mentioned, has been an important part of that. Later this summer, we will publish an interim report that sets out a clear direction of travel, with further policy detail to follow in the Budget.
As for online voting, in the English Devolution White Paper, the Government recognised the importance of ensuring high levels of turnout. My colleagues at MHCLG will come back with further proposals in due course.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of changing business rates here in London on the West End? High Streets UK has labelled the Bill a bit of a disaster and said it will be bad for growth, bad for investment and bad for jobs, and puts too much burden on Britain’s flagship high streets.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As he will know, the current business rates system, with temporary reliefs for retail, hospitality and leisure, creates a yearly cliff edge for the sector, disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. Exactly because of and recognising that, to support our high streets, the Government announced at the Budget last October our intention to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value below £500,000 from 2026-27. The rates will be set at the Budget this autumn so that the Government can take account of the revaluation outcomes and the broader economic and fiscal context in their decision-making.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister say which of the recommendations set out in the 2023 report on business improvement districts have been implemented? In particular, what consideration have the Government given to reinstating the BID loan fund? What plans are there to set up more property owner BIDs outside London, as the report recommended? Are there any plans to assist with the setting up of BIDs in regions in the north and east, where they are scarce?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On this Government’s proposals for improving BIDs, the English Devolution White Paper, which I mentioned, set out our intention to strengthen BIDs. We will come forward with further proposals to do so in due course.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, over the years I have run a number of small businesses. In England, any small business with a rateable value of £12,000 or less is entitled to a 100% rebate. Do the Government have any plan to increase that threshold from £12,000?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We have set out very clearly that we want to go further to modernise the system, over and above the tax cuts that I set out for small properties, exactly for the reasons my noble friend sets out. We have published a discussion paper setting out priority areas for reform that highlights further areas, including how to incentivise investment. Later this summer, we will publish an interim report setting out a clear direction of travel. We will then set out further policy detail in the Budget this autumn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister consider the position of ABIDs and perhaps, when the Government refuse a situation, provide some more incentives for ABIDs, so they act more like a local levy for seaside towns?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to take that away and discuss it with my colleagues in MHCLG.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches broadly support BIDs and would not want to upset the good arrangements that exist. I welcome the Minister’s assurances on these issues, as far as they go, but could he undertake to come back to the House and inform us if developments suggest that their future is in doubt, given their importance right across the country?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, absolutely, although I do not quite see why their future would be in doubt; as I said, we have set out our intention to strengthen them. We will bring forward proposals to do exactly that. I do not see that the wider business rates reform agenda we have set out would in any way impact the important work that they do.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley for the work he does in support of business improvement districts, but I also pay tribute to business improvement districts themselves for the extraordinary work they do in improving the nature of, usually, town centres, but it might be different areas, and also in reducing crime and disorder in those areas. In the light of the Prime Minister’s foreword to the strategic defence review—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—in terms of the national initiative that he is talking about and the shared endeavour to improve our preparedness and resilience as a nation, does the Minister not see that there is a particular role for business improvement districts in ensuring that local areas are indeed resilient against all sorts of attacks and threats and that businesses themselves are making a contribution to that process?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my friend for his question. I will say honestly that I had not thought of it in that way before, but I can absolutely see the point that he is making. My noble friend started his question by talking about the important role that BIDs play. There are, as he knows, more than 340 BIDs now operating in the UK, which are cumulatively investing more than £154 million each year in their local areas. I think the type of initiative that he described is exactly the type of work that they, in some areas, do, and I am sure could do more widely. So I very much agree with the point that my friend makes.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, are the Government considering using business rates to encourage live music in pubs and clubs? That could have a massive effect on making, certainly pubs, more interested in providing music on weekends.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That is a very interesting proposal from my noble friend. As I say, we will set out an interim report later this summer, setting out a clear direction of travel, and let us see whether those ideas are included.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does the Minister know or will he research what proportion of BID money is being spent on foot patrolling by the private security industry in areas where we thought the police were supposed to be doing it and where we are already paying for it separately?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to follow the noble Lord’s suggestion and research that. I do not know the number off the top of my head, but in the spending review, we set out important new investment in the high street, particularly the security of the high street, because we know that, if we want people to go into their high streets and spend money and time there, they need to feel safe. Therefore, investment in crime reduction and deterrence in the way that the noble Lord sets out is important.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Monday 23rd June 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberTerminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 June 2025 - large print - (20 Jun 2025)
Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 April be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 17 June.
Casinos (Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 May be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 June.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Independent Guardians(1) The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) For section 48 substitute—“Independent guardians(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to enable persons (“independent guardians”) to be available to represent and support children to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to a child if—(a) a reference relating to that child has been, or is about to be, made to a competent authority for a determination for the purposes of Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and(b) there has not been a conclusive determination that the child is not such a victim; and for the purposes of this subsection a determination which has been challenged by way of proceedings for judicial review shall not be treated as conclusive until those proceedings are finally determined.(3) This section also applies to a child who appears to the Secretary of State to be a separated child.”(3) After section 48 insert—“48A Independent Guardians: functions(1) This section defines the functions and duties of person appointed as an independent guardian under section 48.(2) The functions of an independent guardian are to—(a) ascertain and communicate the views of the child in relation to matters affecting the child;(b) consult regularly with the child and keeping the child informed of legal and other proceedings affecting the child and any other matters affecting the child;(c) contribute to a plan to safeguard and promote the future welfare of the child based on an individual assessment of that child’s best interests in line with leaving care services. (3) In the discharge of their functions, the independent guardian must at all times act in the best interests of the child.(4) The advocate will assist the child to obtain legal or other advice, assistance and representation, including by appointing and instructing legal representatives to act on the child's behalf.(5) For the purposes of this Act—“separated child” means a child who—(a) is not ordinarily resident in England and Wales, and(b) is separated from all persons who—(i) have parental responsibility for the child, or(ii) before the child’s arrival in England and Wales, were responsible for the child whether by law or custom.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to incorporate the entitlement to independent guardians for separated and trafficked children and set out their functions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 166 with the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, to whom I am grateful—she regrets that she cannot be in her place—as I am to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, the RMCC, for its help.
The amendment would introduce an entitlement to an independent guardian for separated asylum-seeking or trafficked children, in line with international law and the provisions already made in Scotland, building on and expanding the existing independent child trafficking guardian service run by Barnardo’s.
Imagine that you are a child who has fled persecution or conflict, travelling across Europe and then making the perilous journey across the channel, all of which makes for a pretty traumatic experience. You arrive frightened, wet and cold. You are given no time to recover but, instead, almost immediately are faced with questions that you may not understand and age-assessment procedures that can all too easily wrongly determine that you are an adult. I will not go into that today, other than to say that research shows how these age assessments can undermine children’s mental health and well-being. You then face incomprehensible bureaucratic procedures and have to navigate complex systems, such as social care, immigration and criminal justice, as you make the difficult legal journey involved in claiming asylum.
How different might it be if you had a legal guardian to support you? The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out that legal guardians are a crucial component of a protection system for children who temporarily or permanently lack a family environment and are unable to have their interests represented by their parents. An independent legal guardian in this context plays a key role in supporting unaccompanied children by connecting them to all the support they need, instructing solicitors on their behalf and, most importantly, representing their best interests throughout.
An evaluation of the Scottish guardianship service, now called Guardianship Scotland, showed that it played an invaluable beneficial role in supporting unaccompanied children. In particular, it helped them with navigation and orientation, gathered and provided information for stakeholders, supported interactions with immigration lawyers, and provided emotional support.
The RMCC applauds the crucial role played by the service, which, it says,
“highlights the transformative power of dedicated advocacy and care”.
Barnardo’s points to the evidence of the positive impact on mental health during often lengthy asylum waits, with qualitative feedback emphasising that guardians are viewed by asylum-seeking children as their primary source of stability, advocacy and protection. It told me that seven independent evaluations of the trafficking guardian service that it runs found that having a guardian helps reduce children’s likelihood of going missing and their vulnerability to harm.
The effects on children have been both immediate and long-term. Barnardo’s quotes asylum-seeking children supported by its service in Northern Ireland:
“I trust you and rely on your support”,
and
“my friend does not have an independent guardian working with him and this is so bad. I would have really struggled with that”.
Yet the limited reach of the traffic and guardianship service in England and Wales, and the lack of any such service for asylum-seeking children here, means that thousands of vulnerable children are having to struggle every day as they try to build a new life.
Compelling evidence of this comes from a new study of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people by the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire, as I referred to in our previous sitting. It focuses in particular on their well-being. The children and young people themselves identified a number of aspects of their lives that were important to their well-being, including
“not being lonely and having reliable people to talk to”
and
“professional support and knowing professionals are taking responsibility for you and your needs”,
along with
“having hope for the future”.
Moreover, they viewed integration as key to their well-being.
Happily, a significant number of the children and young people were being supported by a charity operating an independent guardian-like service. For them, that was often the difference that made the difference, but, the report said, these specialist casework interventions happen mostly by chance and after procedural drift and poor mistakes in and around the asylum decision-making process, rather than systematically or at the early stages of children and young people’s asylum applications.
The report talks of a “protection gap”, in which the children and young people felt very much alone. Their sense of well-being was closely associated with the extent to which they felt cared for by professionals—to have what the authors call a “scaffolding of care” built around them to help give them hope and belief in themselves and their future—and hope for the future was crucial to their well-being.
The importance of caring support from a social worker cannot be stressed enough but not all enjoy such a relationship, and social workers do not necessarily have the requisite understanding of the asylum system. This led to the recommendation by the children and young people themselves, echoed by the academic researchers, for
“independent guardians from the start and throughout their journey, who understand the asylum, immigration, modern slavery and social care processes, who understand the unique challenges”
and who are accessible.
As that study illustrates, the case for extending the guardianship service lies primarily in the positive impact that it will have on a particularly vulnerable group of children, in line with international standards. It is also a very cost-effective measure. UNICEF UK and the Children’s Society calculated some years ago that a system of guardianship for all unaccompanied children could save £1.25 for every £1 spent over three years, rising to £2.39, taking account of the benefits once the children become adults. That detailed cost-benefit analysis estimates an overall saving of over £62 million arising from reduction in social work time, police resources, interpreting time, judicial and legal expenses, and the time of other professionals.
Ultimately, what is at stake here is the mental and physical well-being of children. That is what the Bill is all about. As one of the young people in the study I cited commented:
“Children are not just a category. You need to be living all your childhood”—
a maxim that we might apply to the Bill as a whole.
The RMCC concludes:
“In light of the substantial financial savings, improved systemic efficiency, and enhanced well-being of unaccompanied children, implementing a nationwide guardianship service in the UK is both a fiscally responsible and morally imperative decision”.
In her recent oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister, Angela Eagle, suggested that the Home Office
“may start to look at how we can provide a voice for migrants—an advocacy service, a help service”.
I do not know what she had in mind, but I suggest that a guardianship service for unaccompanied children would be a good place to start.
I am not looking for such a decision today, but I believe the case is compelling from the perspective of children’s well-being. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to commit to talking to her Home Office colleagues and, together with them, to give the proposal serious consideration, with a view to possible implementation in the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. I declare that I am vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and co-chair of the all-party group against modern slavery. Ten years ago, the Modern Slavery Act introduced child advocates who are informally called guardians. It is a brilliant scheme, but I understand that it is still in a pilot stage, which is one of the sadnesses of the implementation of parts of the Modern Slavery Act.
Lord Storey (LD)
I entirely agree with what has been said. You cannot imagine how it must be for a child or young person to suddenly arrive here on their own and not have any knowledge of how they progress or what to do.
Liverpool used to be a centre for children who were just sent to the UK, although I think there were a number of places. I remember vividly a boy who arrived in Liverpool at the age of seven. The local authority, which happened to be Knowsley, immediately found foster parents for him. His life was completely changed; he came to my school not speaking a word of English, but when he did his key stage 2 SATs in maths, he got fantastic results. The sad thing was, of course, that at the age of 18 he had to be sent back home.
I do not understand the difference between a local authority dealing with this problem and organising foster parents and providing a guardian. There must be something so that young people who arrive in this country through no fault of their own are supported.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, as I understand it, would complement the role of the independent child trafficking advocate in these cases with the right to an independent guardian. It would also expand their remit to include children who are separated from those with parental responsibility or the equivalent in their home country.
As the noble Baroness knows, probably better than anyone else in the Committee, there is existing statutory guidance for unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery dating from 2017. It is clear that, in common with all looked-after children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are entitled to independent advocacy support. The guidance stresses that this might particularly be the case for this group of children.
The Refugee Council has a very helpful flow chart on its website showing the asylum process and clearly highlighting the role of independent advice at two stages in the application process. As we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the independent child trafficking advocates have only partially been implemented. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about full implementation.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for sharing the recent research from the LSE and the University of Bedfordshire with me. As she described very emotively, this paints a picture of real inconsistency in the response that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children receive. It makes a number of recommendations, including this one. However, as the noble Baroness knows, implementing independent legal guardians would require significant investment in training, establishing oversight and case management systems—although I acknowledge her cost-benefit point. I presume that there would also need to be some form of proper accountability and oversight of these guardians.
There is a case for making the existing law work as it was intended before amending it and introducing an alternative. I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s deep and long-standing concern and work in relation to the welfare and rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but there are profound questions to be asked about her amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 166 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and compliment her, as always, on the eloquent and moving way she described the plight of so many children and young people coming into this country. I know that she is a very passionate advocate in her own right and speaks to many people across the piece.
Specifically on the amendment, although other issues have been brought into the discussions today, it seeks to provide support, via independent child guardians, to all separated children. That would be in addition to trafficked and exploited children. It would also initiate the support on consideration of a referral, rather than when an initial decision has been made that a child has been potentially exploited. This amendment also sets out limited functions for the independent guardians but, crucially, it removes the ability to amend these functions through regulations or statutory guidance.
Currently, the existing independent child trafficking guardianship service is a specialist provision for trafficked and exploited children, operating in two-thirds of local authorities across England and Wales. We are moving forward towards a national contract, planned for tender in the summer of 2025, building on the work from the Modern Slavery Act and from the very first authorities that were brought into scope in 2017. As we have heard, this is currently funded by the Home Office but delivered by Barnardo’s. It is important to note that we will look at best practice all the way through the piece as we move forward. Modern slavery engagement forums are absolutely critical in this, and I will go on to speak about the Minister’s role as well.
As my noble friend Lady Lister is aware, the needs of trafficked and exploited children are complex, ever evolving and ever changing. Defining functions directly in the Bill would reduce the flexibility for the Secretary of State to adapt the role through the statutory guidance or regulations as it needs to evolve. We would not wish to limit the functions of guardians in this way and would instead continue to provide the detail for their role in statutory guidance or regulations. We believe that this is the best way we can move on and acknowledge changes in circumstances as we move forward.
I recognise my noble friend’s intentions in extending the independent guardian provision to all separated children, and I acknowledge the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in this space as well. This would significantly expand the scope and, unfortunately therefore, strain resources, which could delay support for exploited or trafficked children who need urgent help. Separated children will not necessarily be trafficked, and there is a risk that this provision will overlap with the existing support, causing confusion or duplication in some places, as well as providing unsuitable services for some separated children.
The arrangement for unaccompanied asylum seeker children is, as we know, that they are looked after by local authorities in keeping with the arrangements for all children in the United Kingdom. Unaccompanied asylum seeker children are provided with a professional social worker and will also have an independent reviewing officer to oversee their care arrangements. They are also entitled to legal assistance in pursuing their asylum claim. These arrangements ensure that children are provided with independent support and advice; the addition of a guardian to this framework, as I have said before, could risk adding another level of complexity to existing arrangements. Instead, we have worked to provide additional support specifically to vulnerable children who may have been trafficked. We therefore do not consider that expanding or bringing forward the point at which support is initiated would be in the best interests of meeting the needs of exploited and trafficked children.
That is not to say that we do not recognise the work that needs to continue. I am pleased to say that Jess Phillips, the Minister for Safeguarding, has regular meetings with the ICTG service. She holds round tables, bringing everyone together to make sure that we can bring the role of advocates into this mix and continue the essential conversations.
I completely recognise the need for stable relationships, as outlined by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We can only imagine the disruption, upheaval and separation, and the impact that that has on these very vulnerable young people. The importance of this is that the child will have access to an advocate. Unlike the social worker and IRO, the advocate is not required to have a prescribed social work qualification; their primary purpose is to represent fully the views and wishes of the child. As part of this function, they can assist the child in obtaining legal advice in the same way as the social worker and IRO—and, indeed, the foster carer, where that is appropriate.
I understand the need to continue the conversations. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that those conversations will continue. I completely acknowledge that there is no room for complacency at all in this very important area of work. With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel content to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I entirely understand and respect the Minister’s reservations, particularly on not putting regulations in primary legislation that might make more difficulty—that I understand. It is the spirit of the amendment that I am particularly concerned with. I just ask, is it intended that the modern slavery advocate will be put out across the entire country before the end of this year?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The tender is going out in the summer. I believe that implementation will take some time and should be fully up and running by 2027.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her support. She put her finger on the key point, which is that it is the spirit and not the details of the amendment that I hoped that the Government would consider. She made some important points, in particular that social workers change all the time, guardians are there all the time, and that there is a real danger that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children could be exploited if they are not properly supported. The distinction that is being made between asylum-seeking and exploited children is not such a clear one as has been suggested.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend the Minister for their kind words, but I go back to the point that the spirit of the amendment is that we need to think about this. I am glad that my noble friend said that conversations will continue, but will they continue with the Home Office? I originally decided to push this issue when I was confronted by a group of young people who clearly just did not know what was going on, they had not understood anything, they had faced difficulties as young asylum seekers, and it just seemed to me that they needed support throughout. I had read about the Scottish system, so my question is, if Scotland can do it, why can we not? I leave that thought with my noble friend the Minister. I ask that there be discussions with the Home Office, because it is a really important issue, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Nash
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to social media(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children—(a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of social media by children at different ages and developmental stages, and(b) by regulations made my statutory instrument require all regulated user-to-user services to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent children under the age of 16 from becoming or being users. (2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on 'Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews'”, and(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.(3) Any regulations under subsection (1)(b) must be treated as an enforceable requirement within the meaning of section 131 (and for the purposes of Part 7) of the Online Safety Act 2023.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1)(b) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) For the purposes of this section—“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—(a) England,(b) Wales,(c) Scotland, and(d) Northern Ireland;“regulated user-to-user services” is as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to their use of social media by commissioning advice from the Chief Medical Officers and introducing regulations to prevent under 16s from accessing social media.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 177 seeks to ban access to social media before the age of 16. Other amendments in this group relate to screens in schools, edtech, and the use and possession of smartphones in schools. I refer to my interests in the register, particularly the fact that I am co-founder and chair of a multi-academy trust and an investor in a number of technology companies.
We are now seeing an overwhelming body of clinical evidence about the dangers of social media for children and young people, and a rapidly increasing awareness about this among parents, teachers, and children and young people themselves. The title of this Bill is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and, in my view, nothing could enhance the well-being of our 9 million schoolchildren and young people more than to accept this amendment. Nothing could have a wider impact.
The dictionary definition of well-being is the state of being comfortable, happy or healthy. Sadly, millions of children are in none of these states. Indeed, it would be better to scrap the whole of the rest of the Bill and enact only this one amendment than to enact the Bill without it—although I am not proposing that.
According to Health Professionals for Safer Screens, social media causes developmental issues such as language and communication difficulties, emotional and social difficulties and reduced academic attainment, and has an impact on ADHD. It says it causes physical impacts, such as changes to the brain, poor eyesight, eating disorders, obesity and sleep difficulties. There is evidence that autistic children are particularly vulnerable to the impact of screen time.
A recent UCL study corroborated the link between social media and eating disorders, and that young people with eating disorders are more likely to be shown harmful content by social media algorithms. Samaritans’ research has shown that young people frequently see self-harm and suicide content across all social media sites, some of which display particularly graphic and triggering content. Almost three-quarters of teenage girls think that social media creates more pressure for people to look a certain way. If I can attempt to paraphrase such a leading expert as Andy Clark, professor of cognitive philosophy at the University of Sussex, overreliance on technology negatively impacts our ability to think, predict and be creative.
The impact of social media on reading is something we are seeing ever more articles on. A study published in Acta Paediatrica concluded that brain connectivity in children is increased by the time they spend reading books and decreased by the length of exposure to screen-based media. According to Teacher Tapp, 56% of teachers would prefer a world without social media and, of course, teachers are particularly aware of the impact of cyberbullying.
According to Mumsnet, half of parents say their children’s use of social media negatively affects their self-esteem, rising to 57% for girls, and 83% of parents back a social media ban for those under 16. Some 60% told Mumsnet that they would be more likely to vote for a party that implemented such a ban. It also makes the point that this is a cohort problem—that is, it is too big for any one family to solve. Millions of families across the country experience a daily battle with their children because of the addictive nature of smartphones and social media. Is this what we want for our families? I do not think so.
A recent American Harris Poll found that most parents wished their children grew up in a world with no social media—the same level of regret as for guns. According to HMD, 64% of parents say smartphone use negatively impacts their child’s sleep, and 61% say that it reduces the amount of physical activity they undertake. More than half are worried that it will reduce the amount of time they spend socialising with friends, and 75% of parents fear smartphones expose their children to internet dangers, with more than half admitting that they just do not know what their children get up to when using their phones. Almost half of parents believe mobile phone use has changed their child’s personality.
According to Deloitte, over half of Gen Z would favour a ban on social media for under-16s, rising to 71% for millennials and 78% for boomers. According to an American survey by Common Sense Media in 2023, the average American 11 to17 year-old receives 237 social media notifications a day.
According to Parentkind, 67% of 16 to 18 year-olds themselves think smartphones are harmful, and according to a Millenium Cohort Study, 50% of teenagers say they are addicted to social media. New research by the British Standards Institution shows that almost half of young people aged 16 to 21 would prefer to be young in a world without the internet.
Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition, as teenagers become more conscious of how others perceive them; they often experience increased self-consciousness and self-criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to it serve only to amplify this. We also know that the adolescent’s brain is particularly susceptible to addictive behaviour. Constant exposure to fast-paced, highly stimulating content can only condition the brain to expect frequent, rapid rewards, making it harder to sustain focus and concentrate.
So, why 16? As I have said, adolescence is a significantly important period of development, and we know that girls and boys may be more vulnerable to the negative effects of social media at different times during their adolescence. Indeed, research shows that girls experience a negative link between social media use and life satisfaction when they are 11 to 13 years old and boys when they are 14 to 15 years old, suggesting sensitivity to social media use might be linked to developmental changes, possibly to changes in the structure of the brain, or to puberty, which occurs later in boys than in girls.
The 13 to 16 age group is the least risk-averse and is easily influenced and highly susceptible to issues such as grooming, cyberbullying, body dysmorphia and social comparison, violent content, misogyny and knife crime, not to mention dopamine addiction. Thousands of influencers push on social media vaping, antidepressants, therapy, cosmetic injectables and mental health misinformation daily on to our teenagers.
A study by Northwestern University found that children aged between seven and 18 on average use six different skincare products a day, and some more than a dozen—all of which is to say that age restrictions which seek to stop children accessing harmful content on social media from an earlier age than 16 are unlikely to be effective in stemming harm.
We want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, be reflective, able to concentrate, able to exercise judgment and see the other side’s point of view, be compassionate and so on. We also want them to get a good night’s sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours.
Research by the Children’s Commissioner shows that the experience children have online is entirely different from that of adults, and that they are affected by content in different ways. Content that adults may not find harmful can be extremely damaging to children and adolescents. The former Children’s Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, who I am delighted to see is in her place, has stated that:
“Too many children are spending their most precious years sedentary, doomscrolling on their phones and often alone, while their health and wellbeing deteriorates”.
We know that the police are very concerned about the use of social media in the radicalisation of children and young people and in their recruitment into gangs. The Education Select Committee has concluded that:
“The overwhelming weight of evidence submitted to us suggests that the harms of screen time and social media significantly outweigh the benefits for young children”.
It is time to deal with this issue, and I am encouraged that the Government are at least thinking about it. However, the concept of two hours per app—two hours on each of WhatsApp, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, TikTok and so on—is really playing at the issue. France is planning a ban, one is being implemented in Australia, New Zealand is bringing forward legislation on one and Greece, Spain, Denmark and Ireland are considering one. We take children’s safety seriously in areas such as smoking and alcohol; now is the time to step up to the plate on social media.
It is particularly noticeable that all the leaders of the main teaching unions have pointed out, in stark terms, the dangers of smartphones and social media, with the general secretary of NASUWT describing smartphones as “lethal weapons”. This support from the unions is commendable. As the Labour Government are so close with the unions, I very much hope that they will follow their advice. Why should our hard-pressed teachers have to deal with the consequences of this free-for-all?
I have cited much research and many statistics, but I will conclude by asking noble Lords to remember five points. First, smartphones and social media are damaging the development of our children’s brains. Secondly, they are highly addictive. Thirdly, they expose them to serious risk of sometimes life-threatening dangers. Fourthly, cyberbullying is rife. Finally, they are having a serious effect on our children’s self-esteem, mental health and well-being, which is what we are here to debate. The formative nature of teenage brains is totally ill equipped to win the battle against the algorithms embedded in social media by companies with billions at their disposal. They need our help—and they, their parents and their teachers are crying out for it. It is time that we came to their aid.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 183CA and 183CB in this group. Before I do so, I will add my support to Amendment 177, from my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Barran, and Amendment 458.
It is odd that, while we are legislating in this Bill for the provision of breakfast clubs, of which I have previously said I am a fan, legislating for the use of social media by teenagers and the use of mobile phones in school seems to be a step too far for a Bill that is focused on children’s well-being. That is despite the wealth of evidence, to which my noble friend just alluded, about how disruptive phones can be to children’s well-being and learning.
It is not good enough to say that 90% of secondary schools report having a policy in place to ban the use of phones in the school day—which, by the way, means that one in 10 allows access to phones in the school day. What matters is how effective those policies are, and the evidence shows that, in too many cases, they are not effective enough. Around 80% of secondary schools surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner allow children to keep their phones on them in the school day, with the expectation that it is not seen or heard. However, the evidence shows that that is not working. The National Behaviour Survey in 2022-23 found that 36% of secondary school teachers reported phones being used without permission in at least some of their lessons in the past week, while 59% of pupils reported the same.
When the previous Government introduced guidance on mobile phones in schools, they said that they would keep the approach under review and move to introduce statutory guidance if the situation had not improved. A key milestone for assessing that was the publication of this year’s National Behaviour Survey. When I asked the Minister in January when she expected it to be published, she said that it would be in the spring. I may have missed it—I do not think that I have—but could she update the Committee on when we can expect the results of the latest behaviour survey?
My amendments, in a sense, follow on from my noble friends’ Amendment 177, which I support, but they specifically focus on the advice and guidance for parents, teachers and carers of preschool-age children. To be clear, unlike many who have participated in this Bill so far, I am no expert in this area; I am working hard to ensure that I am across, and understand as best I can, the evidence in this area. However, to some extent, that is the point of my amendments: if you are a parent, childcare professional or teacher of preschool children, there is no clear summary of the available evidence and no clear advice on the best approach to children’s use of screens and technology in their early years, yet such screens and technology are ubiquitous.
A good starting point for both amendments would be the Chief Medical Officer’s advice provided for in Amendment 177, which crucially specifies that it should differentiate by age. I could not find any public guidance from the Government or Ofcom that really reflects that. In fact, much of the guidance that is available is inappropriate for very young children and may give parents a misleading understanding of how they can best navigate this tricky area for preschoolers.
In my experience—I declare my interest as a mum of two preschool children—there is nothing mentioned by your GP, by your health visitor or at children’s centres: so many of those important touch points in the early years of a family. The same absence of advice or guidance extends to early years childcare and education settings too. I could find no reference in the early years standards framework to the appropriate and safe use of screens in early years settings, and that surprised me. My amendments simply seek to fill these gaps to provide proper guidance to parents and early years settings. So I would be keen to hear from the Minister about what work the Government are doing in these areas.
Within the Government’s opportunity mission, they have set themselves a milestone of
“75% of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage assessment by 2028”—
an increase from 67.7% currently. With screens so ubiquitous in children’s and parents’ lives, and excessive screen use shown to impact on so many of the early learning goals, including communication and language, physical development and social and emotional development, this must be an essential part of the Government’s plans here.
Research shows that significant proportions of younger children have access to smart devices, including phones, and spend significant time online. Ofcom’s Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2025 shows alarming trends, not just on the scale of use but on the pace of change. One in five three to five year-olds have their own mobile phone, extending to 85% of their age group using any device to go online. More than half use messaging sites or apps and half use livestreaming. The proportion of parents of three to five year-olds who say that their child uses social media apps or sites has significantly increased in recent years, from around a quarter in 2021 and 2022, rising to three in 10 in 2023, and almost four in 10 this year. Over a third of parents of three to five year-olds whose child uses social media use it on their children’s behalf, and over four in 10 say that they use sites and apps together with their child. However, two in 10 of these parents indicate that their child uses these apps independently.
Many of the debates we have had about keeping children safe online focus on teenagers, which is not surprising given that the legal age for accessing social media is 13—it is older for some apps currently—and many of the observed harms are particularly acute in teenage years, as we have heard. But what constitutes appropriate use of devices and an appropriate amount of screen time will vary wildly for a two year-old compared to a 12 year-old, and we must reflect this.
So, more specifically, can the Minister say whether my understanding is correct that there is currently no guidance for preschool settings in the early years standards framework on the safe and appropriate use of screens, and if that is the case, do the Government have any plans to introduce such guidance? Can she also say what plans there are not just to produce guidance based on the best available evidence specifically for parents of preschool children, but on how they plan to disseminate this? For example, are there any plans to integrate guidance into the Start for Life campaign, or to provide tips and information for new parents through the health visiting programme?
I end by emphasising that this is not about judging parents or telling them what to do. I use screens and my kids use screens—both of us, sometimes or often, too much. It is not about moral panic either. It is about recognising that the ubiquity and nature of screens in our lives has changed. If we equip parents, caregivers and teachers with clearer information and tools, we can help them navigate this ever-changing environment with more confidence and support. It is important that the Government recognise this, particularly for early years development. I look forward to hearing their plans in this area.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first substantive contribution in Committee, I declare my education interests as chair of E-ACT multi-academy trust, of STEM Learning, of Century-Tech and of COBIS. I also own half of Suklaa Ltd, which has a number of education clients.
Amendment 458A in my name is an amendment to Amendment 458 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I am seeking to add an exemption for educational purposes to the exemptions from the policy of smartphone bans in schools proposed by her amendment. I have read Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation, Christine Rosen’s Extinction of Experience and Jenny Anderson and Rebecca Winthrop’s excellent Disengaged Teen. I know that our children are losing out on the vital developmental impact of unstructured outdoor play, thanks to the distractions of technology.
We are all losing the multisensory benefits of engaging with real-life experiences because we are too busy on our phones, including in this Chamber, and we are losing empathy as a result. The overconsumption of violent online content is increasing the bystander effect that distinguishes us as communities of people.
Our children are increasingly disengaged from learning, partly due to boring content at school and partly due to diminishing attention spans, thanks to too much time scrolling short-form videos on TikTok and Instagram. I am only too aware that social media is addictive by design and is the main culprit in this complex set of problems. Multiple systemic reviews and surveys confirm that excessive smartphone use is associated with poor sleep quality, increased depression and anxiety and lower life satisfaction among teens, something that this country has a particular problem with and that cannot be solely blamed on phones and social media.
This month, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a large study tracking more than 4,000 adolescents and finding that the smartphone risk to youth mental health is primarily linked to the addictive use of smartphones, social media or video games. Those who reported compulsive use were two or three times more likely to experience suicidal thoughts or self-harm by the age of 14, compared with their peers. The study found that it was the addictive behaviour that was the strong predictor, not the amount of screen time per se.
I therefore have some sympathy with Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I compliment him on the way he introduced his amendment—echoing, almost word for word at times, the speech he made on the very first group of amendments in this Committee. However, I am unpersuaded that Chief Medical Officers are the right people to lead on this. I am concerned that Ofcom may not be as rigorous as I had understood when we passed the Online Safety Act in enforcing the terms and conditions of platforms relating to their minimum age limits. It may well be that this House should look to another opportunity in the next Session to toughen Ofcom’s responsibilities and duties in this regard, once we have seen a little more of the impact of the Act as Ofcom is implementing it. Amendment 183CA from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seems quite sensible, and I think Amendment 183CB should be pursued by the DfE, but in close partnership with Ofcom as the regulator.
Amendment 458 clearly has merit. Most schools have adopted such policies to ban or control smartphones following the previous Government’s guidance. At E-ACT we are now piloting the use of signal-blocking pouches that pupils are required to store their phones in during the school day. The early findings are that this has had a really positive impact on the schools concerned in terms of learning and behaviour. I am told by a friend who is a parent of children at Westminster School, over the road, that it is using geofencing technology so that when pupils enter the location, phones’ functionality is changed to turn off social media but to retain their use for emergency broadcasting, due to the security risk related to their proximity to Parliament.
In all these schools, children are benefiting from having a rest from their phones. Teachers benefit from the lessening of distraction and the absence of a back channel of conversation going on through lessons. In some other schools that have done this, there is even a reduction in playground fights because pupils are no longer able to film and share them online.
However, I am also working hard on issues related to media literacy, in part as a member of your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee. The issues relating to social media addiction are now being amplified by the ease of creating highly credible false content using generative AI. The algorithms will not only continue to be addictive but feed content that is misleading, upsetting and disturbing, as any of us can now create images, audio and video, at will, of anything that we can imagine. This needs a more sophisticated response than simply a ban. This needs education, in schools and for adult parents and grandparents. It was clear from the committee’s witnesses that just relying on a knowledge-rich teaching of media literacy will not work. If we just tell young people what is dangerous and harmful, what to look out for, we will fail. Children do not want this to be yet another thing that we tell them off about.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. He makes a very compelling case for better media literacy. He and other noble Lords will recall that we did push very hard for that during the Online Safety Act’s rather lengthy passage, but without as much success as we would have hoped. Every week that we wait before we implement more effective media literacy is a week lost, and probably part of a generation lost as well.
I was very happy to put my name to Amendments 183CA and 183CB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. As noble Lords have heard, this is a very live subject. Countries and societies all over the world are wrestling with the effects of the technology that is all-pervading—to a greater extent than most of us would wish. When the noble Lord was talking about geolocation at Westminster School, I thought for a fleeting moment, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had geolocation in the Palace of Westminster?”. Once one entered here, one could no longer have access to news websites telling us things that are distracting and probably not very helpful for what we are trying to do. I exclude important things such as messages from your club about the lunchtime and the availability of the wine list.
The Online Safety Act took a very long time to happen. As we have learned since its enactment, making it flesh and making its intent have teeth is a very lengthy and protracted process—far longer than we had hoped and envisaged. We may still be two or three years away from knowing whether some of the key protections for children are working.
We do not have the luxury of being able to take this slowly. We need speed and we need clarity. When the noble Lord was talking about the distractions of the screen for young children, I thought of how often I, like others, pass parents or carers in the street pushing a pram; the child may well be in distress or asking for something, but whoever is pushing the pram is so deeply into their telephone or so deeply engaged in a conversation with their earphones in that they cannot even hear the child. They cannot even see it, if it is facing forward. That, in some ways, is a very good summary of the dilemma we have got ourselves into.
The Education Select Committee of another place produced a sensible report, just over a year ago in May 2024, called—perhaps the name of the Bill is a tribute to the name of the report—Screen Time: Impacts on Education and Wellbeing. As it happens, almost exactly a month ago, His Majesty’s Government—and, I assume, the Department for Education—issued their response. It is quite lengthy and fairly comprehensive. I would be surprised if, when the Minister responds to this group, she does not talk about many elements of the department’s response to the Select Committee’s report.
The import of the Government’s detailed response and its underlying theme is that this is very complicated and there are lots of different moving parts: “We are still not really on top of it. We are engaged and listening, but not ready to do anything yet”. One message that we all sense is that we do not have time on our side. Society, parents, teachers, those who look after young people, educators and the companies responsible for education technology want clarity and a sense of direction. They want to know that the Government are engaged—we will never be on top of this—looking at this carefully, and willing and able to act, quite quickly if required.
Equally, and importantly, if the Government act but the consequences are not quite as intended, they should have the courage to say, “We did not get that right. We need to change it and tweak it in the light of new evidence”. This is such a dynamic situation that we need a dynamic approach to deal with it.
Lastly, I think we need to look carefully at the psychology of this. For nearly 40 years, I have been involved with a charity that is now part of Coram, of which I am a governor, called Coram Life Education. It is the largest provider of health education in primary schools in the United Kingdom; we teach about half a million children a year. The essence of the way we teach is completely contradictory to schools’ normal pedagogic approaches: we do not tell the children what to do; we listen. We give the children information without saying whether it is good or bad; then we ask the children to give their views on the information they been given and what conclusions they have come to—whether it is good or less good for them. In this way, the children feel they have some control over what they are asked to do.
The least effective thing would be going for any sort of blanket ban. Children, as we all know, are probably far better versed in technology than we are. The more we try to ban it, the more clever ways will be found to get around it. It simply would not work. The way to get this to work is to get the children involved and engaged, because they will come to their own conclusions. They are not stupid. The more intelligent ones know exactly what social media and these addictive applications are doing to them. We should listen and learn from them the ways to respond to this, rather than thinking that we know best. We have allowed this situation to develop in plain sight over the last 15 to 20 years, and we have been very ineffective in dealing with it. Perhaps listening to the generations who are most directly involved and on whom this is having the greatest effect would be a smart way to look at it.
Finally, my noble friends Lady Kidron and Lady Cass are unable to be with us today but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, will know, they have convened a very impressive group of genuine experts in this field. There is a growing, deeply worrying and compelling body of evidence that the effects of screen time on children before the age of six will have a lifelong impact on their cognitive skills, behaviour—everything about them. The longer we take to acknowledge what is going on and to do something about it, the more we will regret it.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently and persuasively described by my noble friends Lord Nash and Lady Penn. I was also extremely struck by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on the need for education. It is about education, which is one of the safeguards on which we can rely. I was also struck by the points made by noble Lord, Lord Russell, which in some ways echoed but added to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight.
In April this year, the Times published the wide-ranging and comprehensive findings of its crime and justice commission. Its conclusions on the effects of social media on children aged under 16 were damning. They ranged from radicalisation, criminalisation and antisocial attitudes, right through to mental health problems and extremist views. The commission recommended that children under 16 be banned from accessing social media. It added that two-thirds of the population support that view, and that a higher number of the 16 to 24 year-old group do so. That is significant, because that is the group that has experienced the pressures.
As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, Australia has recently imposed such a ban, and many other countries are preparing to do so. A total ban is self-evidently beyond the scope of the Bill, but a ban on the use of smartphones in schools is within its scope, given its focus on the safeguarding of children.
The vast majority of our schools will have policies in place to deal with the use of smartphones. There can be problems in implementing them, not least because the technology is constantly evolving and policies have to adapt to keep up. Some parents have understandable anxieties, feeling the need to be in contact with their children at all times, and they might well oppose a complete ban. There are also anxieties about age limits and other issues. The fact is that the decision is left to the school, and as a result there is a huge range of policies across the school spectrum.
Many will maintain that the decision should be left to the school, in accordance with its circumstances. I have sympathy with that view, but I have a couple of points to make; indeed, I have a question for the Minister when she winds up. I hope she can tell us the view of heads of schools on an overall ban, perhaps by year group, on smartphones in school. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, might also be able to help us with this. My guess is that the majority of school heads and teachers would welcome at least knowing where they stood on this issue and having one less thing to justify or argue about to parents and colleagues. It would certainly be time-saving in developing the school’s own policy and they themselves having to police it, whatever it might be.
Restrictions on smartphone use, especially in the classroom, would cut out phone-related bullying in school, which frequently transfers to the playground and sometimes into the community. It would also reduce child-on-child abuse—an important safeguarding issue. Of course, this Bill is also about safeguarding. More positively, and I am sure former teachers in the Chamber will agree, schools that have introduced a reduction in access to social media through smartphones have reported better communication and participation skills in their pupils.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, so I declare my interest as chair of and adviser to the Birmingham Education Partnership.
It is 25 years ago, when the Minister and I were in the Department for Education, that we were discussing the rollout of technology in early years. It just was not part of school life; it was not an implement that was used. The thing we were most worried about then, which underpinned every speech I made, was that it should be an innovation that became available to all and was not limited by social class, the family you are born into or how much money you had in your pocket. I never thought that, a quarter of a century later, the debate would be about the damage that that area of technology development has brought to schools, but we must remember that that does not take away from the vision, the hope and the aspiration we saw in this technology a quarter of a century ago.
However, we are clearly not in a place where we want to be. I cannot say anything to counter the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Nash—indeed, everybody who has spoken—gave about the impact of social media on young minds. It is just terrible. As an adult, I feel responsibility that it has happened and that we moved too slowly to do anything about it. If some of us come to the conclusion that we do not want to ban smartphones in schools, it should not be a political dividing line; we are actually all on the same side. We have at least got to that point, but there is a genuine debate to be had about how we take it forward to protect our children so that they have the advantages that technology can bring while saving them from the risks and the bad things that it can do.
I think that there is a difference between smartphones and social media that has not been clear in this debate, and I am not sure about the definition of smartphones at the end of the proposed new clause. It says that a smartphone is something
“whose main purpose is not the support of learning or study”;
I do not know what that means. A smartphone enables learning and study and good things in life, and it allows social media to reach people that it should not be reaching. The definition is quite difficult to follow.
My main problem is that the smartphone is a bit like the atom bomb; you cannot uninvent it. It is entrenched in our society. There are things that as adults we cannot now do unless we have a smartphone, and every single week, month and year, government and everybody else push us as adults to use smartphones. That is what AI is about. All the advantages that are going to come through AI are connected to smartphones, so whether we like it or not, we have gone too far down the road. For adults, smartphones are here to stay. I do not see how abolishing them in schools allows teachers and educationists in wider civic society to train and help young people come to terms with the adult world in which they are going to live. If smartphones are banned in schools, if they cannot be used, how can we expect young people to be competent and confident adult users of smartphones and to cope with social media? It would be like saying, “We’re not going to teach you to swim, but by the time you get to an adult, we’re going to let you live by the side of a lake”. It is just nonsense. We have got to help children to come to terms with smartphones, and that is why I thought that the speech made by my noble friend Lord Knight was powerful.
I describe myself as being on a bit of a journey. I am a bit of a floating voter on smartphones in schools, but when I am honest with myself, I know that the reason that I nearly come down on the side of banning them in schools is that I am panicking that we are not doing anything else. I almost reach out for anything—at least we could ban them in schools; at least we could protect children between 9 am and 4 pm; at least we could protect them between five and 18. To be honest, that is not enough. If there is this problem, and we all seem to have signed up to the idea that it is a problem, it needs more from us as policymakers than to, yet again, say it is the responsibility of schools. Reducing teenage pregnancy was the responsibility of schools. Healthy eating was the responsibility of schools. Being better citizens was the responsibility of schools. Every time we have a problem that goes through society and we are not quite sure how to deal with it, we put it on the curriculum—it is the responsibility of schools.
I do not say that schools have not got a responsibility—they hold the major responsibility because they are going to be teaching media literacy—but they are not the only ones who have it. If we are serious, adults, parents, government and civic society need to get together with schools and educators to try to solve this problem. It is not sensible to say that all we can do in this Bill is go for schools. That would make a bad policy. When it does not work, we cannot say, “Yes, that’s all we could do in that Bill”. That would be poor policymaking. I hesitate to say that government has got to look at it in the round and do something more than it has, because that is just time, and we have known about this problem for 10 years at least and we have not moved fast enough. I end up probably coming down on the side of my noble friend Lord Knight and saying that there are things that need to be done in schools that mean we ought to keep smartphones in schools.
I have some specific questions on that. The proposed new clause in Amendment 458 would ban smartphones, except in two or three circumstances. My noble friend Lord Knight then puts down an amendment, which is great, excepting another circumstance. We know what is going to happen: people will be putting forward amendments as to why, in a particular case, smartphones should not be banned in schools, and eventually it will all be a muddle and we will have to start again. In truth, you cannot ban smartphones in schools. There will always be reasons why you will need to use them, so you end up coming down on the side of saying that we have got to use them well and we have got to support young people.
My last point is, how do you enforce it? It is in the law. If the governing body—that is the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to tell the truth—permits smartphones in schools, who enforces it? Do you get the police in? Do you get parents to report it? Do you get kids to report that they have been allowed to have a smartphone in school? At the moment, it is heads who choose, along with their governing body and staff and the wider school community, not to have smartphones in schools. They own that. It is their law. They have gone through the preparation, talked it through and arrived at a decision, and that makes sense. I may just not be seeing the rationale, but I worry that enforcement, when it is in primary legislation, will be not a great thing for schools. I am coming down on the side of not banning them, but my great worry is that it is just another couple of months passed where the real dangers that were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and others have not been addressed in this House or elsewhere.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I think she spoke for many of us on the challenge of edtech: how our hopes that this would be a transformational technology have now changed emphatically, and how we now find ourselves in a place we really did not intend to be.
I would like to say a word about Amendment 183CA, from my noble friend Lady Penn, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Cass. My noble friend Lady Shephard put it well: our children do need respite, and a school is a wonderful place to be spared that kind of respite. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, spoke well about the harsh impact on education.
However, it is Amendment 177 that I primarily want to address. For that reason, I see Amendment 183CA as a stepping stone to getting rid of mobile phones from the lives of under-16s altogether at some stage; that is what I will address my comments to. I do this as a former Health Minister and I declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Society for Public Health.
The neurobiological evidence of the harms of social media on children is not ambiguous any more. It is irrefutable, as it is, for instance, for tobacco. We can see the causes and the correlations. One three-year longitudinal study published two years ago found that adolescents who habitually checked social media showed “distinct neurodevelopmental trajectories” in brain regions governing social reward and punishment, such as the amygdala, the ventral striatum, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In other words, social media exploits the dopamine pathways involved in addiction, creating cycles that exploit the neurochemical pathways that determine their actions.
I personally struggle with addiction. I find it extremely tough. Our children’s plastic brains are just not in a shape to be able to survive that struggle. This challenge is not a teenage rebellion or some kind of moral panic. It is a systematic neurological manipulation by megacompanies that know exactly what they are doing.
Social media is a major driver of the mental health crisis that this country faces, and the consequences are contributing to the overwhelming of our NHS. In 2024-25, NHS mental health services supported 800,012 under-18s, an increase of nearly 300,000 since the NHS long-term plan first started. I will not go into the figures in detail, but I assure the Chamber that this is not a question of “snowflakery” or wokery; it is a genuine public health emergency, and the problem is not going away.
I say this with some delicacy. I am one of the few Peers in this House who has children of this age. Mine are 18, 15, 13 and 10. In answer to my noble friend Lady Shephard, they are all at different schools, which is a logistical problem for me. None of the schools is winning this battle. In fact, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that, each year, I have seen this problem get worse. You can feel the algorithms getting more effective and having more of a grip on your children’s lives.
Each year, children spend more hours on the phone. The communal social pressure each year is more intense. Mental health, and self-harming among friends in schools, gets worse. There is more and more disgusting pornographic filth available to young children. Statistically, there are more predators, activated by the addictive escalator of increasingly violent porn, seeking meet-ups with my children. There are more frustrated parents each year watching their children’s attention and well-being deteriorate. The kids simply are not mature enough to handle these toxic tools and this content—and this is even before AI gets to work on their brains with superpowered social algorithms that screw with their heads. It is going to get worse and worse.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, there seem to be two issues here. One is social media and the other is the smartphone, and the two of them are accessed via each other. However, we should remember what a smartphone is: it is a platform for using technology.
The reason I raise this is that—and this is in my declaration of interests—I am someone who believes in and uses assistive technology, and one of the easiest ways to get that is, increasingly, through your smartphone. As a dyslexic, I access literature, often with complicated local accents in it, via technology. Initially, it was an abridged book on tape. You can use it that way, so there is potential here. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about caveats, but there is the potential to benefit people, including in the education environment.
It is one of the oddities that we refer to our phone as something which is a tool. It is a tool for much of the deaf community because they text. Texting is easy when somebody has not been in an environment where they have been taught to write properly, because that is what happens in the deaf community. They become addicted to text speak. Let us be a little more selective about this.
I salute the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for starting this debate and starting it so well. But remember, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Make sure this is something you can use as a platform. There will be other ways, and there may be ways around this, but I just say that everything has a price, and this is one. Please remember it. You might be excluding groups that we will be talking about in this Bill and future ones, who use it as something to support learning. I felt I had to say that to throw it into the argument, because it is an important thing to bear in mind.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, in the amendments they have proposed. I also agree very much with the comments made by others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, who made some important points, especially about the risk of overloading schools. My noble friend Lady Shephard made some very important points about safeguarding. When, as chief inspector, I reported on sexual harassment and abuse in schools, it was notable how much of that we found to be linked to smartphone use.
I would like to clear up a bit of confusion, because I think we are not properly distinguishing between personal and school-controlled devices. I think the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was heading in this direction a moment ago in his remarks. Every school has many school-controlled devices—computers and sometimes tablets—and it is much easier to maintain the framework of safeguards around devices that are owned and controlled by schools than it is around personal devices.
These devices are suitable for teaching media literacy and many other things or in teaching children how to use technology. They can also very effectively provide technology. The dividing line here is between devices schools are able to control fairly fully and devices that essentially remain children’s property and in the children’s control, and where there will never be the level of supervision needed to make them safe—at least not in the foreseeable future.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am interested in what the noble Baroness said—that the laptop and tablet learning devices that schools have would be sufficient for teaching media literacy. Does she suggest, therefore, that they should install social media apps on those devices, and teachers would have to create profiles and personas that would start to mimic children so the algorithms would then think of them as children and start to feed them the sort of stuff the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was talking about? Is that really what she is saying? Would it not be easier for the purposes of media literacy for the personal devices that children are looking at, with the personalised feeds those children are seeing, to be used in order to educate them?
Baroness Spielman (Con)
It is perfectly possible for children to log in on different devices. They can log into a social media account and the school can use broader control facilities to ensure that all information is wiped, or all personal details are wiped, at the end of a session. That contains the range of what children are doing in any given session.
To give another analogy, we do not teach children about the risks and harms of drugs with drugs and the paraphernalia for using them in their hands or on their desks. More generally, I am afraid that the history of teaching children about risks and sensible and safe behaviour do not have that much to show that they can be successful.
One of the saddest reports that we published during my time at Ofsted was on child obesity. It showed, sadly, that the schools that were doing the most to promote and encourage healthy eating did not have measurably different obesity rates from the schools that were doing the least. So I think there is reason to fear that simply an educational approach, as has also been advocated here, might not be all that effective.
Finally, I will explain why, although I agree with so much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, I have come to the opposite conclusion. It is important that we think about how to reinforce the authority of head teachers and teachers in this difficult space. With legislation, they would not have to argue the toss with parents to sustain a school policy that will always be disliked by some parents. What we have seen and heard, including expressed so eloquently in this Chamber today, shows that mobile phone use by the young is likely to be at least as harmful to them as smoking, and we have no difficulty with having a ban on smoking in schools. I believe that a ban will reduce arguments and give time back to schools—to heads and teachers—as well as helping children. So I hope that this amendment will be included in the final Bill.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 458 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend Lady Kidron. I have spoken on this issue several times in your Lordships’ House, and I will not repeat those speeches here. I am a teacher and have taught for 10 years, but never in a school that allows students outside the sixth form to carry phones to or in school. My noble friend Lady Cass says about mobile phones that the stakeholder view and desire for action in this area is overwhelming. I will talk not about the separate issue of whether smartphones themselves are harmful but rather about whether they should be in school at all for the under-16s.
Students who do not carry phones do not get mugged for phones. In schools that do not allow mobile phones, students talk to each other at break and lunchtime, or play games or go to clubs, rather than staring at their phones. So I am about to be rather brave here: for the first time I am going to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley—at the same time. I do not think that an exception for educational purposes would be workable. You cannot teach these students how to use phones; they know far better than we do. What you can teach them are the dangers. Again, I am going to do a first here and say that it might be rather better on a PowerPoint slide than doing it practically. I really worry about 30 students in a room with their mobile phones—what carnage could happen there? But this is back of a fag packet stuff.
The excuse quite often is that carers need to communicate with people. Actually, carers do not need phones; they need time away to be children. Quite often, the people they are caring for can be very demanding, and sometimes too demanding. Schools are very good at getting messages to students in emergencies. If it is not an emergency, perhaps the child does not need to know right away. Parents do not need to know exactly where their children are at every given moment. If there are emergencies with transport, they can go to a responsible adult and ask for a message to be sent or to borrow a phone. We managed over 100 years in education without mobile phones in schools—why start now?
The Minister said recently that it is up to school heads to make the decision. At a time when, with this Bill, decisions about uniform, pay, admissions and the curriculum are being taken away from school leaders, I think a lot of them would be secretly delighted to have the Government take this decision away from them and take the lead on it, allowing them just to police the phone ban without getting the blame.
Children need time to be children: to learn, to play, to interact and to build and rebuild friendships, face to face. Leaving aside the view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which I can see—but schools can provide the technology themselves—none of these is improved with a mobile phone.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 177, 183CA, 183CB and 458. As my noble friends Lord Nash, Lord Bethell, Lady Penn and many others have so eloquently laid out, the devastating impact of social media on children is not speculative anymore. It is an irrefutable fact. Social media, as many have said, is addictive; it impedes brain development and exposes children to sexual predators and harmful content, including body imaging. It is fuelling a crisis in adolescent mental health. Last year, more than 800,000 children under 18 needed NHS mental health support. This is a national crisis.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
At what age does the noble Baroness think that children should be taught how to use phones safely?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
Children could use phones that do not connect to the internet—phones that do not access social media—like the old phones, if they need to phone their parents in an emergency. With the mobile phones that we are talking about now, for children under the age of 16, their brains are not developed enough to understand the harms and dangers—and, as we have said, it is all very addictive. Big tech companies know how to get children to look at certain sites. In our generation, we did not have phones and we did not have that exposure to predators, and we did not have so many mental health issues among the youth.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I ask the noble Baroness how on earth she thinks that parents will be able to stand up against their children so they will not have phones? What we are discussing here is phones in school. The idea that we should prevent children under 16 from having smartphones seems to me utterly unrealistic.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
I did not mean under-16s in general, I meant under-16s at school, as in those amendments. However, I agree with some noble Lords that parents also need to be educated. When we see parents pushing a pushchair and children looking at video games and such things, it is probably not very helpful, but this is part of education and we all need to get together to educate parents also. So, I support these amendments and I think that, to help our children’s well-being and future, this is something we should look at.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I too support Amendments 458 and 177, and I am delighted to support the amendments from my noble friend Lady Penn, Amendments 183CA and 183CB, which recognise the importance of helping children in their earliest years. Every day, the mounting evidence underscores a distressing reality. The issue of excessive screen time and social media usage is not a future concern but a pressing crisis that is contributing significantly to a growing mental health crisis among our children. Health professionals, educators, parents and concerned community members all echo similar warnings. Our children’s well-being is at stake and we cannot afford to delay action.
The detrimental effects of this overexposure are multifaceted. Children today are grappling with severe challenges, including disrupted sleep patterns, deteriorating eyesight, hindered speech and language development, stunted emotional and social growth, poor eating habits, as discussed in the amendments on food on Thursday, distorted body image, confusing ideologies taught as fact, diminished educational outcomes and impaired cognitive performance. Recent research highlights the alarming prevalence of addictive behaviours associated with technology use among early adolescents. Only last week, a study revealed that half of these young individuals exhibit a high trajectory of video game addiction, while one in three struggle with compulsive social media use, and one in four face similar issues with mobile phones.
The implications are dire. High and escalating patterns of screen addiction correlate strongly with increased suicidal behaviours and ideation and overall mental health decline. Furthermore, research indicates that one in four children and young people are using smartphones in a manner consistent with behavioural addiction. Smart devices, as well as giving access to harmful online content, carry a whole-body impact on the child, including physical and psychological harms, eyesight and musculoskeletal issues, speech and language issues and implications for sleep. Health professionals are now seeing those issues in their clinics daily, and we need to act now to prevent continued generational harm.
The evolution of smart devices is part of the problem. The product has developed so quickly and in such a way that, if it were introduced into the market now, it is doubtful that it would pass regulation as a safe product for children. Yet one-quarter of three to four year-olds in the UK now own a smartphone, while half of children under 13 are on social media. Shockingly, campaigners are in the position of having to prove irrefutable causation of harm rather than manufacturers proving that their products are safe by design.
Each developmental stage of childhood has unique vulnerabilities that are negatively impacted by the use of smart devices and social media. Children’s brains demonstrate tremendous neuroplasticity and rapid growth, which is shaped by their interactions and stimuli in the world around them. The quality, source and content of those stimuli are essential for children to reach developmental milestones. Unfortunately, there are many harms to normal development when smart devices and social media supplant real-world human interaction. We often hear that social media, smartphones and screens are a parenting issue—we heard it today. However, the lack of coherent public health advice to help parents navigate screens and smartphones is a glaring gap. Unlike on smoking, nutrition or car seats, there is no clear guidance on screen time, content or device use. Parents are left without the necessary tools to protect their children.
The UK is an outlier in its lack of screen time guidance for parents. France and Spain are clear on the harms of screens for young children and advise against screens before the age of five—although five seems ludicrously early to me. The US follows guidance similar to the WHO guidance, with no screens before two. However, in the UK, we remain silent, and it is time we changed that.
Amendment 183CB starts to address this startling omission. From birth to three years of age, human brain development is extraordinarily sensitive. During this period, babies and toddlers require responsive, face-to-face social interactions, as well as the freedom to move and engage all their sense to grow and thrive. Although digital devices have become essential in adult lives, extensive global research has reinforced earlier findings that frequent and prolonged screen exposure in children aged nought to three can disrupt their cognitive, physical, social and emotional development. A study from New Zealand found that two year-olds who had 90 minutes of daily screen time were associated with below-average language and educational skills, as well as above-average levels of difficulties in peer relationships. By the time they were four and a half years old, screen use was identified as an independent predictor of developmental outcomes in this study, even when accounting for various individual child and family factors. This suggests that the effects of screen usage are widespread.
These developmental delays can have significant consequences for school readiness. Research indicates that children who spend more time on screens are less prepared for school, particularly in language and cognitive development. This can hinder their ability to access the early years curriculum and achieve educational success. According to a 2025 survey by Kindred2, 54% of teachers reported that children exceeding the recommended screen time were less ready for school.
Parents and caregivers need to be equipped with the information that would help them to understand the very real harms of screen usage. It is unlikely that anyone would deem it acceptable for a child to bring a TV to school, or to chat with a friend throughout their classes, and yet we are still debating whether smartphones have a place in schools. Smartphones are highly distracting, and many children report struggling to put them down. Consequently, they find it nearly impossible to resist the temptation of having smartphones in their schoolbags or on their person throughout the school day. Restricting these attention-seeking devices meaningfully can significantly benefit children’s focus and ultimately their educational attainment. Research from UNESCO indicates that it takes young people 20 minutes to refocus on learning after being distracted by their phone.
Digital distractions in the classroom negatively affect the educational performance of many students. A comprehensive study involving nearly 150,000 students across 16 countries has shown that increased use of smart devices during study sessions considerably undermines learning and academic achievement. The mere presence of a smart device can drain limited cognitive resources, leaving fewer available for critical tasks and harming cognitive performance. Experimental results reveal that individuals score lower on tests when their phones are in the room, compared to when they are left elsewhere.
Schools that impose bell-to-bell restrictions on smartphone usage, including lockable pouches throughout the school day, report significant improvements in students’ well-being and concentration. Policy Exchange’s 2024 Disconnect report found that schools with effective smartphone bans see GCSE results that are one or two grades higher than those with more lenient policies. School leaders who have implemented such measures report remarkable outcomes; for instance, the John Wallis Academy has experienced a 25% decrease in truancy, a 40% reduction in detentions and an 80% drop in incidents of online bullying. These are outcomes we should strive to see in all schools.
Teachers have noted alarming behavioural issues largely influenced by smartphone use, including refusals to hand over devices when requested, unauthorised and inappropriate usage in classrooms, misogynistic behaviour and online bullying. Problems that arise online often spill over into the classroom, impacting students’ well-being and potential for success.
In 2022, exam boards reported a 50% increase in students failing to submit their devices before public examinations compared to 2019. Additionally, 76% of teachers at schools that permit mobile phones would prefer a complete ban on mobile phone use during the school day. A poll from Parentkind shows that 83% of parents believe that smartphones are harmful to children. SafeScreens has been campaigning since 2022 for a tobacco-style regulatory framework to support the introduction of safe and restricted smartphones for children, along with a statutory ban on smartphones in schools.
Children must be supported by allowing them at least a six-hour window during the school day when they can truly concentrate on their learning, without the distraction of a smartphone at hand. We in Parliament must champion a collective response to this crisis. These amendments would work together to protect our children from before birth, in their early years, into the classroom and to the online world.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend Lady Jenkin has just said—it seems to be an excellent prescription for the right way forward.
We approached these technologies with such innocent optimism when they arrived. I absolutely remember what it was like at the beginning of smartphones. We were worried about how we would get them to everybody and how people could afford them. I remember an early example, with my noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold, when I was briefly her Whip in the Lords and she was in charge of education. We were looking at this wonderful new system which would enable us to replace all maths masters with machines—I am delighted that it has not happened. Even Alpha School in Texas, which is part of the latest round of optimism that AI can do everything, is not looking at replacing maths masters either but merely at having AI to help them. We have to be careful about optimism when it comes to new things.
I think we have reached the point with smartphones when we know that they are damaging. We know this from all of the research that has been done and from personal experience—which in my case very much echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, described. Children’s lives at school should be full and social, but the spaces between classes are dominated by phones. All their social interactions are mediated through phones. Even when they are talking to each other, they are talking about what is on social media. The effect on boys, and on their relationships with and ability to relate to girls, is not good.
We have reached the point where we ought to start doing something. We cannot allow this level of harm to continue. I suggest that the Government do something along the lines of the West Dunbartonshire experiment. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Knight, remembers the set-up in West Dunbartonshire where they tested various approaches to teaching children reading. It was supposed to be a five-year experiment but it collapsed after a year and a half, because part of the design of the study was that the schools running various different methods were talking to each other. After a year and a half, the schools that had not been assigned phonics said, “I’m not putting my child through this. The phonics works—we’re going to do that”. It produced a real sea change in the way schools approached teaching children reading, because teachers could absolutely see what the difference was. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin described, we would expect such differences.
Let us set something up and see how it works and what the differences are between schools that have various models—the current model, the intermediate model proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the total ban that I would favour—and see what happens. Let them talk to each other about how they are experiencing this process. Do not try to run it as a total blind trial with only the academics pronouncing at the end; let it be an interactive thing between the schools involved. We would very quickly find out what was working and get a good groundswell for the right solution, which may well be that of the noble Lord, Lord Knight—I do not know.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
Is that not what is happening at the moment? A vast number of schools are, in effect, banning smartphones—as many people would like—some have an intermediate approach, and then there are a few outliers that are not banning them. Is it not the case that the noble Lord is making a good argument not for proceeding with this right now but for going ahead with a proper study on the impact of those various regimes and then acting once we know what we are talking about?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, there are indeed a number of these things going on, but no organised study with an organised direction is taking place. There is no communication between schools, with them saying to each other, “Yes, we could do it that way”. I am looking at a Government who, I suspect, have not been persuaded of the need to act now. Let us do a study now and get something set up, so that we can definitively get to the best answer. While academies are allowed to be different from other schools, a wide range of policies are being enforced. If we take advantage of that, understand what is going on and allow the schools to share that information as the process goes on, I think we will find ourselves with an answer quite quickly.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I fear that what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has suggested is indeed happening: private schools, grammar schools and schools in wealthy areas are doubling down on their success by pursuing smartphone bans. Schools in areas of deprivation, where family and community ties are the weakest, are being left behind.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I had not planned to speak to this group of amendments, having tabled an amendment that we will debate in the following group. But as I have interests in the founding of Parent Gym and in the early years in particular—about which I hope to speak later—it would be remiss of me not to add a few comments, given some of the very esteemed contributions made in this debate.
I support all the amendments in the group with the exception of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for the reasons that have been outlined. My noble friend Lord Bethell touched on an important point in his intervention: we have a real issue around the different types of parenting and families, from those who are aware of the dangers to their children to those who deploy smartphones as substitute childcare. I fear that all the evidence—as very eloquently put by my noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lord Nash, who cited at length the reports and data around all this—show us that there are families who do not have the resource or means to engage in this daily battle.
I declare another interest: I am on that front line daily with my 14 year-old daughter; I hoped that she might have been here this afternoon, but she has conveniently not made it. It is a daily battle. What children will tell their godparents, when you are not around to hear it, is that they actually agree that you are right and that they wish they did not have their phone. They wish that phones did not exist and that they were not part of their life; they want them because their peers have them.
The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, published last week, has very notable commentary about the safety of some of the girls who were groomed by gangs. She talks with real concern—it is in an early section, for those who have not read the entire thing, as I have—about the fact that online activity means that we no longer know what is going on for children. We literally do not know who is in their bedroom at night. Who are they engaging with? Who can forget the case of Molly Russell—the terrible case that an Instagram post led to? There is one place where we can surely assume our child should be safe: at school. It is not an unreasonable request that we, as a society, look seriously at this to care for the health and safety of our children.
I am very aware of the comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, but it is the opposite to asking schools to police the use of phones. I completely empathise with the concern about asking schools to do more, but this is removing from them the need to police phones. It gets them off the premises, or at least locked up within the premises, so that bullying cannot happen online, grooming cannot be going on, boys who are being recruited into county lines cannot be harassed or intimidated while they are meant to be learning at school, and on it goes. Your Lordships have heard plenty from others on the various points.
I end on another note. Let us look at what the people who invented these things are doing. We all agree; no one has disagreed with the fact that they are addictive—we all feel it every day. What do the people who invented them to be addictive and who use behavioural science and neuroscience to do that, do with their children? They have screen-free schools—completely screen-free, incidentally: no tablets or laptops—and screen-free homes. What is China doing? It is hoovering up our children’s data to understand everything about our society and drive their behaviours in the most destructive way possible. If you ask AI, “If I were China, what would I do to destroy the West?”, the answer is exactly what it is doing: to destroy and undermine the mental health of whole generations of people. What does China do with its children? It gives them one hour a day, and it drives them to watch science and maths videos. I support these amendments.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group—I was a minute or so late, for which I apologise. I wanted to hear the arguments of those who oppose Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I will just address a couple of those.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said that we cannot warn children of the danger of smartphones if they are not using them in schools, but let us be more realistic. The school day is only seven or eight hours, and there are 52 weekends and 15 weeks’ holiday. They are going to use these awful things, whatever we do. But at least schools provide a safe space if they cannot use them—we heard the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about not being mugged on the way to school. I see it in my own schools where, although we have bans, the kids get around them. If they have hair similar to that of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, how do we know whether they have AirPods in their ears? With the so-called magnetic pouches, you can buy a disabler on the internet to get rid of it. The list goes on and on.
I agree with the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that you cannot uninvent them, but they are very toxic. We look back on tobacco and sugar, yet we are allowing these things to go on while people cogitate, when it is so obvious that we should be bringing a much more vigorous ban of these devices into schools as soon as possible. I support the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have heard some very powerful speeches this afternoon, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who talked about a world health crisis. I was also taken by my noble friend Lord Addington, who talked about the importance of technology for special needs. I am going to be brave and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton: I want to see children talk to each other, and I want to see them play in schools.
I remember being absolutely—I cannot find the adjective to describe it. During our debates on the Online Safety Act, we were remembering the young girl, Molly Russell, who took her own life after being groomed online, and her brave father sat below the Bar for the whole of that debate. I thought what a brave parent he was, to sit through that and listen to what had happened.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw “Question Time” last week—I do not tend to watch it these days—when one of the questions was about smartphones. A young man of 18 or 19, who had ADHD, pleaded with the panel to ban smartphones. He said, “I am addicted to them—I cannot stop myself using a smartphone. Please ban it”. I thought, “Wow! What a brave thing to say on television in front of everybody”.
Whatever we do, we have to make sure it works. It is no good us passing laws which do not actually work. I remind noble Lords that children who are under the age of 13 are not allowed to use social media. That ban does not happen. I had children at my school who were seven and eight who accessed social media. Whatever we agree, it has to work. My great fear in this whole debate is that it will not work, and people will find ways around it. So I plead with the Government—indeed, with everybody—to have a realistic streak in what we do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have had the privilege this afternoon of listening to some very powerful and well-informed speeches, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I shall speak to Amendment 458 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to Amendment 177, which I was very pleased to co-sign with my noble friend Lord Nash. I note the widespread support evidenced by the popularity of my noble friend Lady Penn’s Amendments 183CA and 183CB, which prevented me from adding my name to those as well, which is testament to the cross-party recognition of this important issue.
Noble Lords across the House have witnessed first-hand the dedication of teachers, parents and school leaders, who work tirelessly to create environments where our children can thrive. Today, I speak to an issue that threatens to undermine their best efforts. Amendment 458 would require schools to implement comprehensive smartphone bans during the school day, with carefully considered practical flexibilities for children who need smartphones to access their medical devices—for example, for diabetes—for boarding or residential schools and for sixth forms. This is not about a blanket prohibition without thought; it is about creating the conditions that are necessary for our children to succeed academically, socially and emotionally.
I note Amendment 458A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and would be delighted to talk to him after this debate in a bit more detail, but I also note the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Spielman about the benefits of using a school-owned device in these cases, and actually did not hear any examples that could not be done on a desktop or a tablet.
There is genuine urgency to address the profound impacts of smartphones on the health and well-being of our children. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that the evidence is mixed. I think one needs to look very carefully, and I thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin for this advice when I sent her an article suggesting that the evidence was mixed. She pointed out who had funded the researchers who were writing the article. We have to be scrupulously careful about both the scale of the sample size in some of these studies and who is funding them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, it is crucial to take both the personal and professional experience into account when designing policy. The desire for change, including, perhaps most importantly, as we have heard this afternoon, from children themselves, is very clear. We have to reset the social norms around smartphone use among young people before we lose another generation to screens.
The Government have argued that existing guidance on phone use in schools is sufficient, pointing to the fact that every school has a policy. But speaking as someone who was part of the previous Government that created many drafts of that guidance—as the Minister can imagine—perhaps we are uniquely positioned to acknowledge that, while it may have been the right place to start, it has proven insufficient. Good intentions without enforcement mechanisms do not protect our children from the sophisticated algorithms designed to capture their attention. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, we need to move with speed and clarity. Some have questioned—
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
That point has been raised by a number of Members, so perhaps I might ask the Minister, because I am genuinely unclear what the thinking is. I know it is not that no harm happens to children using smartphones outside of school. You do not know who is in the bedroom with them; you do not know who they are talking to. I think that is our starting point. I am not clear from those who are supporting this amendment whether they are saying at least they will have those hours a day when they will not be subject to smartphones or social media. I do not know whether that is sufficient, or whether there are further plans in those Members’ minds as to how to cope with the rest of the week. My view is that that is where most of the damage happens: outside school, not inside school.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that a smartphone amendment on its own is not sufficient. As the Minister said a couple of times on previous days in Committee, I will be coming to that later. I will try to address the noble Baroness’s points. If I have not done so by the end of my speech, I ask her to please intervene again.
Some have questioned why we favour freedom and discretion for school leaders in areas such as curriculum and staffing yet seek to mandate action on smartphones. The answer lies in a couple of areas. The first is about accountability. When school leaders make decisions about teacher pay, qualifications or curriculum, they are held accountable through Ofsted inspections, public examination results and parental choice. The consequences of their decisions are measurable and visible. Smartphone policies operate in an entirely different landscape. Here, schools face external actors: powerful social media companies with business models that are predicated on capturing and monetising our children’s attention. These companies employ teams of neuroscientists and behavioural psychologists to create algorithms designed specifically to keep our children scrolling, clicking and consuming content that ranges from the merely distracting to the genuinely harmful. We can all think of cases that, tragically, have been fatal.
The facts surrounding smartphone usage among children paint a sobering picture. A quarter of the UK’s three and four year-olds now own a smartphone—these are toddlers whose cognitive development is being shaped by screens before they can properly read. This figure rises to four in five children by the end of primary school. We are witnessing the digitisation of childhood itself. The emerging evidence linking smartphones and social media to the explosion in mental health problems among young people cannot be ignored. Research demonstrates that the average 12 year-old spends 21 hours a week on their smartphone, which is equivalent to a part-time job. One in four children and young people uses their devices in ways that are consistent with behavioural addiction.
Beyond mere time-wasting, smartphones fundamentally disrupt sleep patterns and concentration, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. Applications are deliberately designed for addiction, through sophisticated dopamine triggers, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said. This pattern appears consistently across western nations, with research showing that earlier smartphone acquisition correlates strongly with poorer adult mental health outcomes, particularly affecting girls.
The academic evidence is equally compelling. The OECD data reveals that two-thirds of 15 year-olds, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, report phone distractions during their mathematics lessons, with distracted students performing three-quarters of a year behind their peers. Even brief non-academic phone use can require 20 minutes for students to refocus on learning. We are not talking about minor inconveniences. We are witnessing a systematic undermining of educational achievement.
Experimental research has moved beyond correlation to establish causation. Studies where students are randomly assigned different conditions—one of which I will send to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Knight—prove that simply having a smartphone in one’s bag, jacket or desk reduces attention capacity and cognitive performance. Students with device access during lessons achieve measurably poorer results because the very presence of these devices is profoundly distracting.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I do not disagree with a word that the noble Baroness has said about these weapons of mass distraction. I am not saying that young people should be able to carry them around—I was advocating the use of lockable pouches. However, is it not possible that there are some circumstances where a teacher, for legitimate educational reasons, would want those pouches to be unlocked and for phones to be used? If that were to happen, is it right that it would be illegal?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not a teacher and probably never will be, sadly—although probably happily for children. My answer to the noble Lord is what was behind my offer to sit down and talk to him. When I talked to teachers prior to this debate about the noble Lord’s amendment, they reacted a little as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, did or suggested that much of this could be done on existing school devices. If there are gaps in that, of course I am very happy to listen to the noble Lord’s expertise. I will press on, or I will be growled at by the Front Bench for going over time.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. As we begin, it is probably worth while identifying that the amendments fall into three related but distinct areas: the use of and regulation of social media, the impacts of screen time, and the proposals for the use of mobile phones in schools. I will respond to the specifics of the amendments. There were times during the debate when, while I recognise the linkages between them, those issues were conflated, which will not necessarily help us to develop clear policy.
In starting, I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords that parenting is hard. It was before mobile phones, but the point about the ubiquity of screens made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, makes this even more significant. We are talking about long-standing issues for young people around behaviour, cognitive development, bullying, lack of exercise, mental health, extremism and radicalisation, and crime. I accept some of the arguments about that, but I say in response to my noble friend Lady Morris that, if I remember rightly, these were all issues we were exercised about when we were in the now Department for Education before the era of mobile phones.
That is to say not that this is not a serious issue, but that there is rarely one easy solution to these problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lord Knight and Lady Morris that straightforward bans are rarely the solution. I emphasise in responding to these amendments that we need a multifaceted policy response, and that is what the Government are pursuing. We will continue to do what is needed to keep children safe online and when using devices with screens.
We recently published our response to the Education Select Committee report on screen time, which further sets out the Government’s positions on these issues. It is not in fact true that the Government are not doing anything on this whole range of areas—and that goes for the previous Government as well as this one.
Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would require the Government to introduce regulations about social media access for under-16 year-olds and to commission advice for parents. I am surprised that we have had just one mention of the Online Safety Act in this debate. That Act is the first step in delivering a more positive, safer online environment for children where they are protected from online harms. As of March this year, the Act’s illegal content duties are in force, meaning that children are already protected from illegal content and criminal activity. Additionally, as of April, Ofcom published its draft child safety codes, which have been laid before Parliament. Subject to passing parliamentary scrutiny, they are expected to be in force next month. Services will shortly be required to put in place measures to mitigate risks they have identified, in order to protect children from harm once the codes are in force.
This is not to say—my noble friend Lord Knight was the one person who mentioned the Act—that there will not be a need for us to scrutinise this carefully in the future and to take further action. But it is right that we focus on what this House and the other House considered during the passage of the Online Safety Act, as a first step.
There has also been important debate about where the evidence leads us. There is certainly an enormous amount of evidence in this area but, overall, the scientific evidence on the impacts of social media and screen time on children and young people is mixed, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, says. There is no clear scientific consensus on a negative impact from screen time and social media use on the mental health and neurological or functional development of children and young people. There is a large amount of discussion in this area whereby correlation is confused with causality, but that brings upon government a responsibility to build the evidence base, which is what we are doing. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is commissioning a systematic review to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children’s well-being, which is being led by the University of Cambridge and a wider consortium of experts and academics. The Government will publish the results of that in due course.
We are also monitoring and learning from wider developments internationally, including in Australia, to share evidence and learn from each other’s experiences. In supporting parents, we have also funded further guidance and support including through Parent Zone. Further research exploring the relationship between social media and child health and how it might be mediated is welcomed, and departmental policies—and the whole Government—will remain agile in light of this emerging evidence base.
We recognise that screen time needs to be proportionate. We do not want screen time to displace beneficial opportunities to socialise face to face and to take part in physical activities. The section of the UK Chief Medical Officer’s report on advice for parents and carers encouraged them to agree with children and young people boundaries, both in and outside school, around online behaviours and time spent using screens.
Amendments 183CA and 183CB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seek to update the early years foundation stage statutory framework and ensure the delivery of a public information campaign on the use of screens by children aged nought to five. I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Baroness was saying. It is clear, both for parents of young children and for providers of early years education, that the right framework, proper information and access for both providers and parents is important.
Once more, the Government are not standing by but taking action. The early years foundation stage statutory framework, which was updated last year, has a requirement for safeguarding policies to include how mobile phones, cameras and other electronic devices with imaging and sharing capabilities are used in the setting. It signposts guidance that covers the risks that children in early years settings could be exposed to by using those devices. In September 2025, we will introduce changes to the safeguarding requirements of the early years foundation stage. These were consulted on in 2025, and the changes include a requirement for designated safeguarding leads to have training covering how to ensure internet safety. The safety of our youngest children is our utmost priority, and we continually monitor and review early years safeguarding requirements and guidance.
The “help for early years providers” internet safety guidance was updated in January 2025, following a discussion with the digital standards for early years action group. The guidance highlights both the benefits and challenges of device usage, that devices should be used in settings as a tool to support children’s learning and development, and that sedentary screen time should be avoided.
There are several further resources that parents and providers can turn to, and I very much take the point about ensuring that information for parents is as clear and accessible as possible. That is why we recently updated the Better Health Start for Life website, which provides trusted advice to care providers of children aged nought to five and support for parents. The World Health Organization also provides guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under five years of age, with recommendations on limiting screen time. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made the very reasonable challenge that we need to keep ensuring that that information is accessible to parents and to those delivering early years provision. I undertake to continue discussions with the department about how we can ensure that not only now but in the future.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Presumably, all the countries that have introduced mobile phone bans in schools have found ways around this. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way through this.
I also wondered whether the Minister was going to comment—perhaps she will come on to this—on the power of the social media companies. In her remarks so far, she has come up with what were, in a former life, perfectly respectable and effective solutions, such as that parents should set boundaries with their children. But we, as parents or grandparents, are now competing with social media companies that have a great deal of power and expertise to disrupt all those good 20th century-type responses.
Lastly, I wonder whether she feels that the figures she gave on schools adopting phone restrictions tie in with the evidence from Teacher Tapp about the level of disruption in lessons that my noble friend referred to.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the point about regulation, the reason why I started by referring to the Online Safety Act was precisely to identify the need that was manifest in a piece of legislation that came through this House before my time but which presumably some noble Lords around the Chamber were engaged in and which was precisely about how to regulate the use of social media for children and young people. That legislation did not happen in the last century; it is literally only just on the statute books. I was making the case that it is important, and that it is right for the Government to ensure that it is working properly as a first priority.
The issue of how we support schools to be able to have within them the type of calm behaviour that they need is, of course, absolutely crucial. In response to the question about when we will publish the survey on behaviour, it will be later this year. To come back to the point I made at the beginning, although I very much doubt that the only factor influencing behaviour within schools is mobile phones, everything that head teachers might need to put in place the restrictions on mobile phones that will, along with the other necessary things, enable them to have strong behaviour policies and practice, is, rightly, available to them in order for them to be able to ensure that that is happening.
Lastly, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I have already said that I see the point of the exemption he has proposed. However, my point is that you have two routes here: the legislative route, which has already begun to be unravelled by the inclusion of a whole range of exemptions; or a positive set of guidelines for head teachers to use to design and develop, in consultation with parents, their staff and the young people in their schools, the appropriate policies for safeguarding children, protecting behaviour and delivering what individual schools need. At this point, the Government believe that the latter is the most appropriate way forward to ensure that children have the protection from mobile phones they need and in a way that recognises the flexibility that will be necessary.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister give way? We had a debate a few months ago on this very subject and I visited the Fulham Boys School, which is a large all-male school with about 1,200 students, to speak at some length to the headmaster. That school has had a ban on phones for about 10 years. The issue is not about having a ban in school but, as the headmaster said very clearly, what happens outside the school. It does not matter what policies you have in place; they will not solve what young people are doing outside of school time. He said the biggest problem he has had in trying to tackle this issue has not been with the pupils themselves but the parents, some of whom are very challenging and regard it as an infringement of civil liberties that anybody should tell them what their children should or should not do.
The real problem is what happens outside the school. The school can have as many policies as it likes, but until and unless we find a way of influencing what happens outside the school—which, as I said, means getting to the young people, because they know themselves some of the harm being done, and perhaps through them getting to the parents to make them realise how their children feel—we will not start to tackle the psychology behind some of the problems we are confronted with.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do note that I was coming to the end of my comments at 18 minutes—just so the Whips know I was sticking to the rules. The noble Lord tempts me to say that that was exactly the point I made at the beginning: there has been conflation in this debate of the use of mobile phones in schools, the impact of screen time across children’s lives—I can quite understand people’s concerns about that—and, as I have said, the need for us, at a very early stage in children’s lives, to be clear with them about the appropriate use of screens, which is probably practically none, and clear in the information that we provide to parents. The Government are taking action on all those areas, alongside gathering appropriate evidence. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The Minister is quite right to point out that the Online Safety Act did not get much of a mention: maybe it is some kind of PTSD, because some of us did hard yards during that difficult passage. One of the most difficult things was the debate on age verification for porn, which started with all the same arguments we have just heard: it is not technically possible; maybe children can learn by watching pornography; the moral rules around telling children what to do are not crystal clear; the science of whether porn is good for children is not cast in stone, and does not have the longitudinal studies that we need to make decisions on it. All that was heard.
At the end of next month, Ofcom will finally bring in a deadline so that all websites that carry a risk of children seeing porn will have to put in age-verification software. Who in this Chamber now genuinely thinks that was a bad decision? Yet it was fought tooth and nail from that Bench by the previous Government, who had to be dragged to that decision by rebellion in the Commons and a four corners of the Chamber effort here.
The Minister faces a similar storm brewing on social media use by under-16s. Could she, with her multidimensional approach to this problem, help us understand the metrics she will use to judge whether it is right to revisit this issue? How many hours a day do children have to spend on social media? How many predators have to get through? How many grooming gangs have to recruit children in order to abuse them? What metrics will she apply to reviewing this decision?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, the noble Lord added considerably to his speech there. I did not use some of the arguments that he suggested were used in this Chamber about porn. I was not in this House so I do not know what arguments and debates went on. Nor did I suggest that there are not considerable issues around young people’s use of social media and the amount of their screen time. The noble Lord is very clear that he believes there should be a complete ban on social media for young people aged under 16. I do not know whether that carries a majority in this House, to be honest. Given that, it is important to demonstrate, as I attempted to do, the action that the Government are already taking to address all those issues, whether it is screen time, the impact of social media on young people, or mobile phones in schools. The Government are taking action on all of them, without necessarily thinking that there is one single silver bullet of a ban that can solve all those problems.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will be brief. I really appreciate what the Minister said on early years. I think it goes a bit beyond safeguarding, but I will look really carefully at what she said. On the evidence point, she referred to the Children’s Commissioner’s work on the policies, but we need to know the effect of those policies. That is where the national behaviour study comes in. The Minister previously told me it was due in spring, but she said it would be later this year. It would be great to understand why there is a delay, if there is one. Could she be more specific about when we will see that study of what is going on in our schools? I will be happy for her to write.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, I said more than safeguarding; I hope she can go back and look at the record to see that. I was pretty sympathetic to the points she made, and I said much more than safeguarding. I share her frustration about when the survey will be published. That is all I can say about it.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for his contribution. I am just so sorry that we will perhaps not see him around this place for very much longer.
On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran concerning the possession and use of smartphones in schools, as my noble friend Lady Penn said, it may be that 90% of schools have a policy, but, unless smartphones are physically not allowed in schools, bans will be ineffective. Teachers are reporting that children are going to the loo far more often; I see the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who is a teacher, nodding. Some schools use pouches, but the evidence is clear. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, if my smartphone is there, I will concentrate far less than if it is out of the room. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Agnew said, children are very ingenious. I am told there are ingenious methods of opening and closing these pouches by using magnets and various other methods.
On what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about the consequences for any school or person who did not follow a ban if we passed this amendment to ban smartphones in schools, I do not think for a moment that we are talking about a criminal offence. Surely a duty would do.
I am highly sceptical about what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about allowing smartphones in schools to teach their safe use. Children know far more about how to use these things than adults. They do not need to see a phone to be told what not to watch. Unless they cannot access social media, pornography or whatever because of age verification, they will watch it. That is what kids do.
On my noble friend Lady Penn’s amendment, which I support, I will make this point. Heads of primary schools have recently been alerted—I used that word advisedly, because none of them can tell me they were aware of any specific notification on this—to the fact that the reception baseline assessment, the RBA, will now require four year-olds to be tested using touch-screen devices, which, of course, they will have to familiarise themselves with before they take the tests. If we bring these screens into schools—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that that assessment—the procurement, analysis and evaluation of which started back in 2019—will be carried out alongside teachers, with the ability for teachers to use other methods with children where necessary? This is not something that children will use on their own, on screen.
Lord Nash (Con)
I understand that entirely. I understand that there will be two devices, on one of which the teacher will have to log the responses. The pupil will sometimes use a hard copy, but they will have to touch a screen for some of the tests. So we will be bringing these devices into primary schools, which will accept their existence for these ages. Goodness knows where this might go in primary schools without the kinds of amendments my noble friend Lady Penn is proposing.
The Government have entered into a £20 million contract with Made Tech Group plc to develop the relevant technology for the reception baseline assessment. The contract specifically states that
“the RBA will be the first service launched to schools in a wider suite of digital assessment tools”.
In other words, this is the thin end of the wedge. I hope the Government will reconsider this. I note what the Minister said about hoping that there is very little of this sort of thing in the early years.
I heard the Minister’s response to my Amendment 177. I listened carefully, and I am afraid that clauses and phrases such as “The Government will do what is needed to keep children safe online”, “Online Safety Act”, “scientific evidence mixed”, “correlation and causality”, “build the evidence base”, “publish results in due course”, “recommendations on limiting screen time” and “advice on sleep” do not fill me with any hope. All this sounds to me like statisticians wanting 100 years of evidence before they say the case is proven. The time is now. How much more evidence do we need? How much more damage do we need to see before we act?
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about Ofcom, but social media companies are perfectly capable of implementing highly effective age limits if they want to. I am glad he was listening so carefully to what I said and noted some similarity between what I said today and what I said in the purpose clause debate, but I hope that when he checks Hansard he will see that there was quite a lot of new material there.
Concerning my Amendment 177 on banning social media before 16, there are clearly very strong feelings about this across the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said. This is becoming a real issue for working families across the country, and I have no doubt that if it is not dealt with before the next election, it will be a big issue on the doorstep, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said. It is no secret that there is support for this not only in this House but across the Benches in the other place, including from a number of honourable Labour Members demonstrated by, for instance, Josh MacAlister’s Bill and other interventions. I urge the Minister to convene a meeting across the political spectrum to discuss how we can take this matter forward, and I ask her now, as a first step, whether she will kindly meet me very soon to discuss how we can take this forward. We may—indeed, we almost certainly will—look to bring this back on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Farmer
“English local authorities: duties relating to Start for Life offer(1) An English local authority must publish a Start for Life offer for its area on its website under the heading “Start for Life”.(2) A “Start for Life offer” for an English local authority’s area is information about the following services that the authority is aware are available in its area for infants, parents, or carers of infants—(a) health visiting services provided by or on behalf of a public authority;(b) services promoting positive relationships between infants and their parents or carers provided by or on behalf of a public authority;(c) breastfeeding and other infant feeding services provided by or on behalf of a public authority;(d) mental health services provided by or on behalf of a public authority;(e) such other kinds of services that are—(i) likely to support infants, parents, or carers of infants, and(ii) provided by or on behalf of a public authority, as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations made by statutory instrument;(f) such services that are likely to support infants, parents, or carers of infants being—(i) services of a kind mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) provided other than by or on behalf of a public authority, or(ii) other services, whether or not provided by or on behalf of a public authority, as the local authority considers it appropriate to include information about in the Start for Life offer for its area. (4) An English local authority must also—(a) publish a Start for Life offer for its area by any other means it considers appropriate,(b) take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring the Start for Life offer to the attention of parents and carers of infants in its area, and(c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that the Start for Life offer is kept up to date.(5) An English local authority must have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State under section (Guidance) when complying with its duties under this section.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2)(e) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This and the following four clauses require local authorities to make information available about support for infants, parents and carers of infants and include reporting requirements relating to such support, to help ensure children’s safety and well-being in the critical first two years of life.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 179 and 183 in my name. It might be a lighter-weight and shorter debate than the important debate we have just had. I should disclose that, taken together, these amendments are a slightly cut-down version of my Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill, my Private Member’s Bill, which secured top place in our ballot. I am, in effect, reintroducing it here given the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the Minister for Health and Social Care, was unable to support it when it was debated in September 2024. In those early weeks of the new Government, she said:
“We need the time and we need to be able to roll out our own cross-government package of support for infants, children and families, as noble Lords have today asked us to do. This needs to be comprehensive, rather than piecemeal … the Bill … does not align with how this Government intend to deliver the comprehensive change that our children need”.—[Official Report, 6/9/24; col. 1369.]
One year on from their election victory, I and many other noble Lords who spoke in that debate or who championed better, more systematic support in the first two years of children’s lives, and beyond that point, are keen to hear more about what the Government’s comprehensive package will look like, so these five amendments are probing amendments intended to encourage the Government to share their plans for both the Start for Life programme and the family hubs programme that is integral to its delivery and wider family support.
It is also a second opportunity to reiterate the intention of that Bill then and these amendments now, which is not to specify what a service offer should look like but simply to require local authorities to publish information on that offer. A large body of evidence points to how critical the first 1,001 days of life, from conception to age two, are to children’s future well-being and the opportunities that they can take advantage of. These days are also filled with stress and worry, alongside much joy, for parents and carers, who often do not know what to expect, what is normal, how best to cope or where to turn for help. The Start for Life programme, based in DHSC, included universal support through the named services in Amendment 179. Again, the Start for Life offer is not the services themselves but rather the information that is published about what is available in terms of health visiting services, promoting positive relationships between infants and their parents or carers, mental health, and breastfeeding and other infant feeding services.
Local authorities should also provide additional information on other services as appropriate, particularly maternity, which was not deemed to be in the scope of this Bill, as maternity is primarily about mothers’ health. As an aside, I argued good-naturedly with the legislation clerks that while the baby is inside and connected to the mother, its well-being is practically indivisible from maternal health, but legally that does not hold. I am not rearguing that now, simply explaining why maternity is not specified in the list.
In the mess and the muddle of new babies, all families need to know what support is available and to be able to access it easily. Funding was specifically provided in the family hubs and Start for Life programme running in 75 local authority areas for expectant parents to receive a physical copy of their local Start for Life offer and to be able to find it online. However, without Amendment 179, future funding to provide that information is not guaranteed in whichever form is best once the very welcome 2025-26 settlement of £57 million provided for Start for Life by the new Government runs out. I will return to this subject in a moment.
Amendment 180 would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance to local authorities relating to their duties under the clause that Amendment 179 would insert. Current guidance is non-statutory. Amendment 183 gives accompanying interpretation for the terms used in these new clauses, and Amendment 182 makes provision for data protection. Finally, Amendment 181 requires the Government to publish an annual report that gives a national overview about the support provided in England for infants and their parents and carers, and the outcomes it is delivering.
I turn back to my intent in tabling these five amendments. My Private Member’s Bill, which they are based on, was leftover business from the previous Parliament. An earlier Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill was poised to go through with much cross-party support in the other place but was pipped at the post by the snap election. I adopted this Bill because knowing what help is available for families in the early years is essential if they are to access and be connected with all that family hubs and the networks of support that they are at the heart of provide. Access, connection and relationships are the three guiding principles of the Government’s approach to family hubs. Here I declare again my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd.
These amendments do not specify that these services must be provided, so this is not tying the Government’s hands with previous policy detail or incurring a large recurring annual cost. They simply require local authorities to publish what is available and make that information readily available, and the Government to publish that aggregated national information picture.
I was heartened by the Government’s recent spending review, which committed to continuing investment in and expansion of the family hubs programme and to
“working with parents to help give children the best start in life”.
This wording is a little tantalising, though. How far up the age range does the best start in life go? Why has “Start for Life” been dropped from the programme name? I am looking at this optimistically. My hope is that there will no longer be what has proven to be a somewhat problematic divide between early years services for all and early intervention for families with older children. The Family Hubs Network organisation has become aware that some local authorities were forced to deprioritise the family hubs part of the family hubs and Start for Life programme because so much of the focus has been on Start for Life.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 183B is in my name and I support the other amendments in this group. First, I draw to the Minister’s attention that this is a probing amendment. It is very long and detailed but none the less intended to generate a discussion of something I feel is very important in a children’s well-being Bill. To exclude the early years seems a lost opportunity; the intention is to generate that conversation.
It is almost 20 years—I have shocked myself by saying how long it is—since I stood as a candidate in Westminster North for the Conservative Party. As an inner-city seat, it was a challenging environment in which to work and to meet people. Deprivation was not uncommon. I remember vividly knocking on a door on the Brunel Estate. As the door opened, the fug of cigarette—and, probably, cannabis—smoke surrounded me. Through the haze, there was what looked to be a very young girl with a baby, probably six months old—now I know better—on her hip. In my shock, in the smoke that emanated from the flat, I said to her, “Is your mum at home?” But she was the mum.
By coincidence, I had just come from an excellent Sure Start drop-in centre around the corner set up by the last Labour Government. I had this moment of clarity, of thinking, “That baby is never going to get to that Sure Start centre”, and that it did not matter who was in government and what was offered—unless we had a proper strategy around early years and a way of reaching that mum, that child’s chances were going to be severely impeded.
I have declared my interest previously, and I declare an interest now, as this was the inspiration for founding Parent Gym, which has run across the country in all the years since it launched in 2010. The intention of Parent Gym, like so many other programmes now like it, was to reach young mums who probably had not had any parenting themselves. The aim was to provide support that was not otherwise available, when reaching out for that support was usually taboo because it came via social services, and they were hostile to the whole prospect of it.
At around the same time, because of my interest in all this, I realised that the beginnings of research were being published into the effects of early life experiences on children. I am delighted to stand in this Chamber today, almost 20 years later, knowing that there is a consensus now around the importance of all the early years and their impact on children—in particular, the first 1,001 days, as we call it—which are so very formative.
We also know now that it is not just those very important years after birth. There is a wealth of research showing the effects of prenatal stress that a mother undergoes. There has been incredible research done in disaster zones, such as after flooding in Puerto Rico, where they have measured the telomeres of the cohort of babies born from the mothers who were in those natural disasters. Telomeres are part of the chromosomal profile that predicts your longevity and your health outcomes. They have found them to be shorter in those babies born in the wake of disasters. We know now that the environment—the family environment, the multigenerational environment—is so very important.
As noble Lords know, I have been involved in some earlier parts of the Bill. We have had important debates about looked-after children and foster care strategy, and so on, but we have not talked at all about the strategy for these families and these very young children. There is such a such a range of evidence now. There is the scientific evidence, but there is also the economic evidence that what we invest in these families comes back multifold for society.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Professor James Heckman did the analysis and found that the returns on early years intervention far exceed those from the remedial action, for which we all bear the cost much later in life. He found returns of $7 to $12 per $1 invested in preventive steps taken.
In this country, in 2018, the Early Intervention Foundation estimated that England and Wales alone spent £17 billion every year—I am afraid that I do not know the current figure but it has grown since then—on late interventions; for example, in social care, youth offending, mental health, special educational needs and criminal justice services. These are many of the things that we have been talking about in this Bill, in this Chamber, and yet we have not discussed, until today, the opportunity here to prevent some of these issues arising.
The numbers are not abstract; they relate to real lives: lives impaired, opportunities lost, families rent asunder, and public resources consumed by crises and situations that could have been prevented. We have looked at the numbers of children in care. We have looked at the numbers of child protection plans. We have not talked quite so much yet—it is in Part 2 of the Bill—about the persistent educational attainment gap that opens up before formal schooling even begins. Only 46% of disadvantaged children achieve expected language and communication standards at age five, compared with 69% of their peers. That is the Department for Education’s own data.
If it is a question of affordability, we are asking the wrong question. The right question is whether we can continue to afford not to do anything. There is plenty of evidence of what works, and we know that there are already plenty of charities and programmes out there, including some of the government programmes that we have heard referred to today, like family hubs and, previously, the Sure Start programmes. Governments always look at this and try to use piecemeal, locally funded, sticking-plaster solutions, but there remains a postcode lottery as to whether there is an infrastructure for these young families and these children who, through no fault of their own, begin life at a disadvantage.
There are a number of things that we know work. Parenting training works, not just in the programme that I founded but in many others: the Family Nurse Partnership, home visiting by trained nurses, health monitoring done by parenting training in the Incredible Years programme, parent-infant psychotherapy—we do not have any shortage of interventions to refer to about what works. I have not tabled the amendment to be directional about which intervention the Government ought to mandate or explore further, but to facilitate a conversation on ensuring that there is a universal approach to all the children in this country to ensure that they are given the right start and right support in life.
Many charities are already doing some of this work—the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, Action for Children, the Parent-Infant Foundation—but that is no substitute for a national infrastructure. We know that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, through her Centre for Early Childhood and the Shaping Us campaign, is working to draw attention to all this, but we need the Government to take this and grapple with it in a meaningful way to ensure that we have some way of identifying these children, and some means by which we place them all within the safety net of our society, knowing that how we treat our children is really a measure of what all of us are. I have placed emphasis on the exploration of this, and I hope that the Committee can engage today in a sensible debate to find the solutions.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the spirit behind all the amendments in this group. Amendment 486 is in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for also putting their names to it.
I am assuming that we are, in effect, pushing at an open door in stressing the importance of early years to the Government. The noble Baroness the Secretary of State—sorry, she is not noble yet, though she probably will be when she stops being Secretary of State. I should say the current Secretary of State, together with the Minister, came to a Cross-Bench meeting before the Bill came to our House. A question was asked about early years, and the Secretary of State was very clear that it is an absolute priority. I am therefore taking that as read, and the question is not “Is it important?” but “What do we do about it?”
I should declare an interest: I was part of the parliamentary advisory team that worked with Dame Andrea Leadsom on the Start for Life initiative under one of the previous Governments—I cannot quite remember which one—which in many ways was a concerted attempt by a Government to do something about early years. Not least, we were trying to undo the unfortunate effects of what happened to Sure Start, which I think everyone across the House, regardless of party, would agree was one of the great achievements of the Labour Administration of the 2000s. With the benefit of hindsight, it was a tragedy that we allowed it to wither on the vine.
Of course, the Labour Party did not allow it to wither on the vine; the people of this country, exercising their democratic ability to vote, which of course we in this House do not have, decided to put in place the Government who decided that there were other priorities, or could say that it was important but not give as much clear support and direction to it as before. Inevitably, what then happens is some parts of the country will continue to think it is incredibly important but others, for reasons that may seem good to them at the time, give it a lower priority. That is how you end up with such uneven distribution across the country. The lesson from that for our new Government is that, if a Government of whatever political persuasion are not crystal clear that this is a priority, and if they do not lay down clearly what that means in terms of what must happen and what is non-negotiable, the same thing will happen again.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 486 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and shall add a brief footnote to what he has just said.
At Second Reading, I mentioned that when I was in the other place I went round a primary school in Andover, in one of the less well-off parts of the town. The year 1 teacher, who had been there for 20 years, told me that within a few weeks at the beginning of term she could tell which children were likely to end up in trouble—and, because she was also a magistrate in the youth court, she told me she was nearly always right. There will be many other teachers like her who are able to identify at an early stage which children and families need support.
That is why, as other speakers have said, the Department for Education’s budget should be front-loaded, as all the evidence is that this produces the greatest return on investment—not just for the child but for society as a whole. Research by the IFS published only last month, and early research by the IPPR and the New Economics Foundation all confirm that putting things right upstream reduces problems later—problems which are more serious because they have a wider social impact and are more expensive to correct. My noble friend Lady Cash made the point eloquently in her speech. I recall in 2010 canvassing for my noble friend in north Kensington—I am sorry I did not knock on nearly enough doors, as otherwise her parliamentary career might have started a little earlier. In line with the Government’s policy on the NHS, we should put resources into prevention, rather than treatment.
As earlier speakers have said, the previous Labour Government recognised this with Sure Start. There was some tension between those who wanted a universal service—a centre attended by children and families from all backgrounds, so that there was good integration—and those who wanted the service to be more targeted. There was some sort of compromise, in that Sure Start was focused on the more deprived areas but was universal. This resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, then leading on the policy in the No. 10 Policy Unit, receiving a leaflet inviting him to take his children to an aromatherapy session at his local Sure Start centre.
All the evaluations of Sure Start were positive. It significantly improved the educational achievement of children from nought to four, with benefits lasting until GCSE, at age 16. Children with access to Sure Start performed significantly better in assessments at age seven, 11 and 16, and needed fewer EHCPs at secondary school. It substantially reduced hospitalisations and decreased absences from school. The benefits were stronger for those in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, for boys and for children from ethnic-minority backgrounds. To my mind, this means that future initiatives should be prioritised and targeted, rather than universal. Indeed, the analysis I have referred to indicated that Sure Start was disproportionately used by middle-class families instead of targeting specific families who needed the support.
Then in 2010—mea culpa—I was a member of the coalition Government who abolished the ring-fence for Sure Start. While there were reasons for cutting public expenditure and reviewing how Sure Start operated, in retrospect it was a short-sighted decision, leading to the closure of many centres and the merging of others.
Fast forward to the introduction of family hubs and Start for Life in 2022-23: like Sure Start, these draw together services in education, public health, parental needs and benefits advice. Although they are for children aged nought to 19, they are not actually all within a centre. Family hubs targeting a much wider range than Sure Start risk diluting the early offer of support, which I believe to be crucial. Of course, family hubs are less generously funded than Sure Start was. Family hubs also place more priority on virtual services and signposting, rather than on in-person community hubs.
What this amendment would do is invite the Government to look at what has happened over the past 20 years, review all the available research, both here and overseas, and come up with an early years strategy. My personal preference would be for one focused on the under-fives—getting them up to speed for primary school and identifying and supporting the families and children that need help, rather than a wholly universal service.
I do not know if noble Lords have read what Jenni Russell wrote in today’s Times. She said:
“One of its starkest examples is the recent collapse in the proportion of children who are ready for school at the age of four”—
a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell—
“Some arrive still in nappies, a third can’t listen to simple instructions, a quarter can’t use the toilet alone. In a survey in January half of parents said school-readiness wasn’t their responsibility”.
Those are the families that should be targeted. I know it is difficult to find money for under-fives because there is strong demand from primary schools, secondary schools, and higher and further education, but, as and when the economy improves, that is where the focus should be.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been in the news this week. She also wrote a report for the coalition Government, Working with Troubled Families. She spoke about her report at an ADCS conference in July 2013, saying,
“we can tackle the problems families have better if we get to children with problems aged 4 rather than as excluded children in pupil referral units at age 11”.
My teacher in Andover would wholly agree with that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham, though not because I believe my Government are not doing a great deal about early years—I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be armed with information about what the department is doing and planning—but because I want to be confident that there is a strategy, as mentioned by other noble Lords, which is comprehensive, publicly understood, consulted upon and bought into. I have to say that, right now, I am not absolutely sure that is the case.
I would like to thank organisations for their briefs on this. I want to mention two organisations I talked about in my Second Reading contribution, when I also mentioned the fact that early years were not mentioned in this Bill. The first is Roots of Empathy, which is an international charity based in Canada. I am a trustee of its UK branch. The second is Speech and Language UK, with which I have an association and for which I worked, many years ago, when it was called I CAN. I was delighted when the education team, when in opposition said—I quote our manifesto:
“Developing early communication skills is another key foundation for life, with serious knock-on consequences when development is delayed. Labour will fund evidence-based early-language interventions in primary schools, so that every child can find their voice”.
I would also like to thank the Parent-Infant Foundation, which has produced excellent work for this debate.
Roots of Empathy is a leader in the empathy movement in Canada, which I think has a certain irony, given what the United States leadership has had to say about Canada recently and the fact that that Government seem to find empathy something which is to be disparaged rather than celebrated. It is about developing empathy and emotional literacy in children. The mission is to build caring, peaceful, civil societies through the development of empathy in children and adults. The vision is to change the world, child by child.
The Roots of Empathy programme was created in 1996 by educator and acclaimed social entrepreneur Mary Gordon to break intergenerational cycles of violence and poor parenting. We have Roots of Empathy in some of our schools here in the UK; the programme is in Wales, south London and Scotland. I urge the Minister to visit these schools, with her colleagues, and see how these programmes work.
As the programme has been running since 1996, the scientific evidence about the effects of encouraging empathy among our youngest children shows that it bears fruit as they get older, particularly for boys. I urge the Government to look at Roots of Empathy as something which is certainly in line with our values and certainly delivers. I am very happy to help facilitate visits to the classrooms where this happens.
The timing of interventions, particularly for young children, has to be included in any strategy. High-quality learning in early education and childcare is a crucial opportunity to transform life chances. If it is too late, it is unaffordable and unavailable. The funding of early language interventions in the Labour Party manifesto specified only primary schools, but it is recognised that the commitment to improving communication skills has to be earlier than primary schools. It has to be part of early years, because too many children arrive at primary school not ready to learn and without the speaking skills that they need to be able to learn.
Language at two years old predicts reading, maths and writing when children start school. By the end of the reception year, approximately 20% of children in England are not at the expected level of learning for communication and language and 30% are not at the expected level for literacy. This is a major challenge. That is why I support this intervention and a discussion about early years, what our strategy is and how it will work.
I was a great fan and supporter of Sure Start—of course I was. We are introducing this amendment to ensure that the vital process for early intervention, relational support and family support is not left to chance or short-term policy cycles, as I am afraid it has been in the past. As many noble Lords across the Committee have said, it is based on experience. It took 10 years to quantify the benefits that resulted from the Sure Start programme, by which time its infrastructure had largely been dismantled. So what we need now is a strategy that will outlive all Governments and serve all our children.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 183B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. I am grateful to her for a probing amendment that allows us to think in particular about school readiness. We have already heard about the well-evidenced links between poor school readiness and academic career and lifetime outcomes. Recent research, including from the Centre for Young Lives, has made the link between long-term absenteeism and school disengagement.
I want to think about what school readiness means in the case of neurodiverse children, particularly those with a specific congenital biological learning difficulty, such as dyslexia or dyscalculia. I will highlight four important points that we know about these conditions. First, you are born with them and you will live with them throughout life. Secondly, without identification and support, dyscalculics and dyslexics are likely to suffer long-term impacts to their education, career and health outcomes. Thirdly, with identification and the right support, dyscalculic and dyslexic children can absolutely thrive in school and in future careers because neither condition is a sign of low intelligence or low intellectual ability. Finally, I point to the crucial importance of early intervention in improving outcomes.
If you take those four points together, they present a compelling case for considering the identification of specific learning difficulties as a key component of school readiness. Children with specific learning difficulties will need specific support and, if they get it from day 1, the outcomes for them will be so much better. It is really hard to see how we can deem a child ready to learn if we have not identified a specific learning difficulty and put in place the adjustments that are necessary to meet those needs. So it is not just about securing the foundations for their future learning and giving all children an equal chance to thrive; it is also about obviating any risk that they will be mistakenly judged as stupid, lazy or not trying, all of which have serious impacts on self-esteem, confidence and mental health.
So I very much support the noble Baroness’s amendment, but I would like to see it further strengthened by including a requirement to screen for dyscalculia and dyslexia at the beginning of the educational journey. At the very least, screening for dyscalculia should be included alongside the reading assessments that are already undertaken at key stage 1. My noble friend Lord Tarassenko has suggested that such screening could be made available in every school simply by training two teachers to undertake the testing. Yes, of course there would be a cost involved, but it is a very small price to pay when we think about the long-term economic impacts and the cost to individuals of living and working with an undiagnosed and unsupported learning difficulty. Some 17 years ago, it was estimated that dyslexia can reduce lifetime earnings by £81,000. For dyscalculia, that was £114,000. Goodness knows what those figures would be today—they are 17 years out of date—and we should not forget the cost to the economy of low numeracy, which is currently £25 billion a year.
My noble friend Lord Addington—I like to call him my noble friend—will agree that it is very good news that the sustained focus on literacy and reading scores, and greater awareness, have made it more likely that dyslexic children will be identified. But, for children with dyscalculia, it could be years before an enlightened teacher spots that they are not stupid or lazy but just have a learning difficulty of which most people have never heard. I heard today about a 600-strong school in which there are apparently no known incidences of dyscalculia. The UK prevalence rate is between 6% and 10%, so that just cannot be—
Lord Addington (LD)
There is a great way of discovering that you have no dyscalculia or dyslexia—Japan did it. They just did not recognise the words.
Baroness Bull (CB)
The noble Lord returns to a theme he has raised before.
To conclude, children have 13 precious years to gain the knowledge and the skills that will set them up for their adult lives. All children need to be ready to take advantage of that from day 1, including children who learn differently and therefore need different support from the very beginning.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Cash on a national strategy to promote the health, development and school readiness of all children from birth to the age of five. I agree with everything that has been said in this Committee on this subject. The Minister will know that I will always take an opportunity to rise in support of what we will eventually come to: a national strategy for schools, sport, health and well-being.
But, as my noble friend Lord Young highlighted, this should not be just at primary or secondary level. It is vital also to think about this in the context of early years intervention. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, in her place—she is a passionate champion for children and has done an amazing amount of such work in her life. The Centre for Young Lives emphasises the importance of the expertise in this Committee in looking at the early stage of development and focusing not on a postcode lottery of accessibility to services but on a national strategy and trying to bring together all the good work that is under way.
In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, would normally also talk about early years activity and the importance of physical activity for young children’s development, promoting play and an active lifestyle, building physical literacy, enhancing learning readiness and encouraging habits that can be sustained throughout life. Getting confidence into young children through physical activity is vital. I commend to the Committee the work done by many organisations specialising in early years physical activity programmes—Early Movers comes to mind. It has highlighted that there has been a decline in physical activity among young children, and its work therefore brings our attention to that decline. The Youth Sport Trust’s Healthy Movers recognises the importance of providing training and resources for early years staff to support physical and emotional well-being in young children. There are many other organisations—Hidden Talents, Tiny Tots Yoga and BBC Tiny Happy People—all offering different programmes.
The common denominator among Committee Members this evening on this subject is that we really do look to see whether it is possible to bring together a lot of the evidence of best practice in a national strategy. I urge the Government to look at that carefully, because the benefits of early physical activity are undeniable. Improved physical development is the first. Enhanced cognitive development is undoubtedly a benefit. Social and emotional development comes from building confidence, teamwork and social skills. Long-term health is critical in early years intervention. A focus for those early years is important, as are outdoor activities that match those objectives, such as walking, playing in the park and exploring nature, as well as indoor activities such as dancing, playing with blocks, messy play—finger painting with rice—and using climbing frames. These are all important components of early years activity, and we need to structure those activities. That is where Sure Start was so good, as my noble friend Lord Young said. It showed that one could bring all this together and that it was possible to have a strategy that focuses on best practice for all young people, rather than, as I say, having a postcode lottery whereby some were the beneficiaries of the many charities and initiatives.
I have made a short intervention on this, but a really important one on the wider strategy, as far as I am concerned. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government are thinking about responding positively to try to bring together all best practice, in the interests of all our young people, because there is no doubt at all in my mind that the issues and objectives that I have set out should be universally available, and I very much hope that through this Government they will become so.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, was not here at the beginning of this debate, so she has asked me to say that it is really important that there is good liaison between education and health.
I really feel that I am in a bit of a parallel universe. We are being told about the importance of integrated early years help, and we had such a programme with the Labour Government, which was enormously successful. Yesterday, I read an Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis that showed that it reduced hospitalisations for mental health among 12 to 14 year-olds by 50%, and that it
“improved the dimensions of school readiness—communication & language and problem-solving”.
It was most effective in targeting the most deprived communities—so the stories about how the children who needed it most were least likely to get it were not true. The first 700 Sure Start centres were set up in the most deprived areas—and, actually, there was a lot of work that showed that it was the universal element that made it so important.
It is like a parallel universe, when we know that, during the period from 2010 to 2024, there was an exponential rise in child poverty, which is at the root of lack of school readiness and childhood illness, as well as family dysfunction. Nine children in every class of 30 on average will be living below the official poverty line, and that exploded under the coalition and previous Governments as a result of austerity. So, absolutely, yes, we need an integrated approach—but I sometimes feel it might be helpful for the Opposition to acknowledge what their role was in destroying that provision, which was there for the most deprived and for all children and young people.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I want to clarify, certainly from my own perspective and what I said, that there was full acknowledgement of how successful the Sure Start programme was—and I understood that to be the position by consensus across the Committee. So I am very sorry that the noble Baroness feels that she is living in another universe, but it is not the intention of anyone here to cause dissent on an issue on which it is so important to have consensus. I think that everyone who has intervened in this debate has been coming from a very good place.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
I absolutely acknowledge that, but it is important to note that such a provision was available and was defunded. The number of centres was decimated, which has had long-term consequences that noble Lords have been so clear about: the effect on the poorest children of that poverty of provision. I think that is really important to note.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I feel the need to move on. I very much support early years strategy, and I particularly appreciated the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Young of Cookham. I remember a mother and her three year-old daughter. The mother had never learned how to speak to her daughter, who had no speech and had never heard anything from her mother. They were invited to join what was almost certainly Sure Start in north Kensington and, three months later, hand in hand, near Christmas, they danced down the steps of the preschool, singing carols together. That place closed—and this is one of the sadnesses that we have.
I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, because I have a granddaughter who at five was said to be stupid. Thank goodness she changed school; she was found to be dyslexic and, I am glad to say, she got a good degree at Edinburgh—but with a great deal of help. To identify children at an early stage, long before they go to school, would make the most enormous difference. It did to my granddaughter, who was extremely unhappy at her first school, because she kept being told she was stupid, and she was not stupid at all. She is one of countless children who are not identified at one stage early enough.
Dare I ask the Minister whether it is at all possible that this Government, from the party that produced Sure Start, which was so excellent, could think one day, when there is a little bit more money, they might reintroduce it again?
Lord Meston (CB)
I, too, want to move on, but I cannot resist repeating my admiration for the admirable Bill last year from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and his work on family hubs. I will concentrate on Amendment 183B from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and concentrate on just one aspect of school readiness and the proposed healthy child programme.
I would like to see specifically included in the proposed healthy child programme referred to in the noble Baroness’s amendment the promotion and encouragement before starting school of vaccination against preventable diseases. Many other countries provide for the mandatory vaccination of children, backed by various types of sanctions—including, it has to be said, exclusion from certain benefits and services. I am not suggesting that for this Bill; that is a debate for another day. However, children are not being vaccinated as they ought to be, and surely vaccination is something to refer to expressly as part of any suggested healthy child programme. It is an important and probably essential public health intervention. A failure to vaccinate a child in readiness for school is seen by some doctors as a red flag for possible parental neglect, because vaccination is the most important thing to be done to protect children. I would like to have seen it in the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I feel the need to add some thoughts of my own to this conversation, which I am very pleased that we are having. I declare my interest as the executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives. I thank noble Lords for their kind comments on that.
This is a really crucial area of policy, and I am delighted that we are expecting an early years strategy and that we have consensus across the House on this—indeed, with the evidence as well. In the spirit of moving on, I hope that there is cross-party consensus going forward on the importance of this, not only for individual children and their families but for the country as a whole, in terms of employment, growth, crime reduction and health.
I could go on for an awfully long time on this, but I shall not. But I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might say something in her closing remarks about the conversations that she is having with the Department of Health, because that partnership is obviously particularly important for early years and early years development.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I support the group of amendments before us, which are well judged. I appreciate that they are essentially probing in nature, but I will make a couple of brief observations.
First, the amendments are important because they focus our minds on long-term strategy. It is often the complaint about government—about any Government; I do not want to be partisan in that regard—that Ministers will often look at what is in tomorrow’s papers and what is going to lead the politics shows on Sunday. At most, if they have particular levels of vision, they might look at what will get them through to the next election.
We know that there must be a much greater focus within government on long-term strategy. The perils of short-termism are no more acute anywhere than in the issue of education. We know that when we look at interventions, particularly early interventions in education, the true dividends of what we provide and invest in may not manifest themselves until 10 or 15 years down the line, but that is no great reason for us to shy away from them. Indeed, it is something that we need to embrace.
Secondly, as other Members have said—I will not repeat the figures—we know that early interventions can create massive dividends for society. Whether that is on the basis of diversion of young people away from future social problems, from justice issues, or of foregrounding, from a societal point of view, in terms of their education, what I think will become an increasing problem, which is the need for early identification of special educational needs—we have seen the explosion in terms of the cost within that. Those are all, if we take it from a very cynical, crude point of view, massive societal gains for a level of investment in early intervention, but on a personal basis, the biggest single intervention is in changing the lives of those individual children. Because I believe that in a society, education can be the great life changer, it can be the great deliverer for young people as individuals.
Thirdly, I believe it is the right focus. We will, in this Committee and other places, spend a lot of time debating the importance of getting qualifications right, getting school transfers correct at different ages, getting the right provision of schools and dealing with curriculums. All those are, I think, very important educational subjects, but the biggest single intervention that helps to determine how successful a child is in education happens before they walk through the school doors in the first place. That is not just my opinion. When I was Minister of Education for Northern Ireland, we commissioned a report entitled A Fair Start, which gathered experts in the field, whether they were academics or people who had direct life experiences. Their strong conclusion was that the biggest single thing that government can do to tackle educational underachievement and raise attainment levels is in that intervention before a child even reaches school.
Fourthly, I say, without entering into the turf war on Sure Start, that it worked well, and when I was Minister in Northern Ireland, I sought to enhance and support it. However, it is also the case that if we are looking at early interventions, we know that there will be families that are at risk of raising children with low educational achievement, and we know that there are communities out there where socioeconomic barriers create problems. Again, from experience and from talking to a lot of people, I think that if we are to have the best early interventions, we need a sense of co-operation and buy-in, particularly from the communities where we are targeting those interventions. If a community in whatever part of the United Kingdom feels that this is simply a top-down solution which is being imposed upon them, and they are being talked down to, the ability for that community to change and to have a level of ownership of education is greatly reduced.
It is important, I think, whenever we look at early interventions that we not only get it fully supported but get it right, which is why I think that the amendments focusing on a strong sense of strategy and taking a very clear look at this are very important.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we very much support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Russell of Liverpool. If we were putting together an early years strategy, we have all the ingredients in this Chamber. Everybody has mentioned the ingredients that will be part of that strategy, from good toilet training on. To my mind, what is really crucial is early identification of problems and then early intervention in those problems. That is the key. We have talked a lot about Sure Start. That was a very good government policy and I pay credit to then Labour Government for introducing it. I know that, in my city, we introduced a number of Sure Start centres in deprived areas. Sadly, they were so successful that the more prosperous parts of the city wanted them as well.
The important thing about Sure Start centres was that they were not just for the children, they were also for the mums and dads. They gave support to those mums and dads in all sorts of areas, from financial support to employment ideas and health: a whole menu of things that were important to parents. Also, which nobody has mentioned, there was outreach provision as well, so that staff from the Sure Start centres could go out into the community, visit parents in their homes and give that advice and support.
We have to be honest with ourselves and remember that there was a world recession and we were all scrabbling around to try to find out where the money was coming from. Perhaps in the UK, in some areas, we made some of the wrong choices, but it was left to local authorities to decide, and many local authorities decided that although there had been a huge reduction in the funding for local authorities, they would keep their Sure Start centres. Sadly, some of them closed. But let us not go back there now; let us celebrate that time but also remember that we have family hubs. Family hubs are perhaps the son and daughter of Sure Start centres and maybe they can, over time, take on some of the other roles that were provided in those previous centres.
Importantly, the amendments say, quite rightly, that there should be two elements. One is that local authorities should make sure that parents are aware of the facilities, information and support that is available to them. It is not just statutory or local authority information; it could be from charities as well. The second is that they can get that information quickly. The Secretary of State must also produce a report that is available to parents and carers as well.
I thank everybody who spoke in this debate: I think it has been really important and useful. There are two things that were not mentioned. The first in fact links to the debate on—dare I mention it?—smartphones. One thing I see that really upsets me currently is parents who, to keep their children quiet or occupied, hand them an iPad. I have seen two and three year-olds with an iPad in the back of a car. I am sure that family hubs will be saying to parents, “That is not the best use of an iPad” and “That is not the way to develop your children”.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, reminded us of going into a primary school where the head teacher said, “I can look at a two, three or four year-old child and see that they might become a problem in the future”. Tony Blair said exactly the same thing some 30 years ago, and there was an absolute furore when he said, “I can go into a nursery and can see the potential criminals of tomorrow”. What he actually meant was that if we do not, as a society, deal with the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has made, then, yes, that is a probability.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have had another excellent debate and I too thank everyone who has spoken. It is a pleasure to speak on this group because it is, as we have heard, so important to give children the best possible start in life and to prepare them for school. Other speakers, led by my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lady Cash, have already set out the case very effectively for supporting babies, very young children and their parents.
Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, talk about her experience of canvassing—when the door opened and a cloud of smoke came out, revealing a young mother and baby—reminded me of being involved 21 years ago in a piece of research on domestic abuse called Safety in Numbers. We looked at the cases of 2,500 women and their 3,600 children, all of whom were living with very severe levels of domestic abuse. Half the children in that sample were under five, and the average length of relationship before those women had got help was five years, so half those children had lived with severe domestic abuse from the womb. That was my equivalent of the door opening and the smoke billowing out.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a good discussion on this third group of amendments about the important issue of ensuring that children get the very best start in life. This Government’s opportunity mission is a bold and necessary commitment to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. It begins where it matters most: in the early years.
We have heard quite a lot of discussion, along with some reminiscing and nostalgia, about the last Labour Government’s Sure Start scheme. Without rehearsing the reasons why we no longer have Sure Start, having once had it has at least demonstrated, through the evaluation that several noble Lords referenced, the considerable success of that model. Also, the process of setting up Sure Start under the last Labour Government at least provides us with some hope of and a road map to getting back its very important contributions—even if we do not, in the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, completely reinstate it.
Amendment 183B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, seeks to publish a national strategy. As the noble Baroness said, this is a probing amendment and I hope I am going to be able to be encouraging about the national strategy. This Government firmly believe that children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances. That is why we have set an ambition for a record proportion of children starting school to be ready to learn in the classroom. We will measure progress through 75% of children by 2028 reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment at the end of reception. This is not just a statistic or a target—it is around 45,000 more children who will start school ready to learn, thrive and succeed. This measure has seen little progress in years, so it is ambitious—but as noble Lords across the Committee have said, it is ambitious because it needs to be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested that nobody so far had mentioned the expansion of access to childcare, so I am going to mention it. The Government are already delivering on this commitment through the expansion of access to childcare with 30 funded hours for working parents from September, and we will be investing an additional £1.6 billion per year by 2028-29 to continue the expansion of government-funded childcare for working parents, boosting children’s life chances and work choices for their parents. Alongside that, we are creating 6,000 new nursery places in schools across the country, in the first wave of 300 school-based nurseries backed by £37 million. At the spending review, we announced almost £370 million of further funding to create tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries.
Secondly, we will work in partnership with the sector to drive up standards and improve the quality of early years provision. We recognise that early years professionals need more than just praise, although they are very praiseworthy; they need real, practical support. That means offering sustained professional development and working with providers to help spread evidence-based programmes as part of comprehensive plans to drive high-quality early education and care. Only by listening to the expertise and experience of those on the ground can we deliver this together.
Here, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, makes a really important point about the way in which we enable the early identification of those with specific learning difficulties in early years settings. On other occasions, I have talked from this Dispatch Box about some of the additional training and guidance that we are putting in place in early years provision to ensure that happens. I am sure the noble Baroness will quite rightly hold me to account for that in future years.
Improving reception year quality is also critical for setting children up for success in the rest of primary school. We genuinely hope and believe that the work we will put in place will enable children to arrive in school able to learn. As several noble Lords have pointed out, for some children it is not until they arrive at school that they have the structure and the support to enable them to have the skills and development necessary to be able to learn. That is why reception year is so critical. It is also why we have recently announced that for our RISE teams, one of the four universal service national priorities will be how we support reception years to improve. That will involve helping all schools to share best practice, to build partnerships and to drive improvement.
Thirdly, we are strengthening family services. Through family hubs and Start for Life programmes, we are building a joined-up system of support from pregnancy through early childhood. These hubs are already transforming lives in more than 500 communities, offering everything from parenting support to perinatal mental health care. At the spending review, the Chancellor committed to continuing to invest in and expand the family hubs programme.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and other noble Lords on the importance of a national strategy. I assure noble Lords who have said it is important to talk not only about progress but about how this will be brought together into a strategy that the Government have already committed to publishing a best start in life strategy. We expect to do it this year, and hopefully sooner than the end of the year. All noble Lords made the point about the need to ensure that this is a coherent and wide-ranging strategy to deliver on the strong target set by the Government.
I do not want to pre-empt the contents of the strategy, but I assure Peers that it will build on our commitment to improve children’s early outcomes and next steps on early years reform. It will also give a view about both how delivery will be achieved and how it will be monitored, implemented and reported. Parliament will be able to hold the Government to account on that commitment and the implementation of that strategy.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—there were many of them—who richly contributed to this debate; it was an important debate. Their contributions have very much made it clear that there is robust support for a transparent early years offer here in this House and that it will remain.
We should not neglect the support that families with older children need. I will go into a lay-by here and reveal that I went to the Labour Party conference in 2018 or 2019, on a windswept day in Brighton. We had a family hubs event going on there, where the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, was one of our speakers. As I was going along the Brighton front, all of a sudden I heard a voice behind me saying, “Lord Farmer, what are you doing in enemy territory?” I looked around and saw the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I said to him, “Lord Ponsonby, family hubs are building on Labour’s Sure Start centres”—and that is what I hope that family hubs are doing.
However, it is not just the nought to five, it is the nought to 19. I know the importance of early years intervention—it is important to get that in place—but currently there is a big cohort of teenagers who need help. Some 44% of our children are growing up in a single-parent family. So family hubs are needed for nought to 19—nought to 25 for special needs. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. As I said, Amendments 179 and 183 should be taken together—they are probing amendments—and I will not press them to a vote.
I also very much appreciate the information that the Minister has been able to share and look forward to this correspondence, or maybe a meeting. Family support and the early years workforce up and down the country are very keen to learn from the full unveiling of this new Government’s comprehensive plans. In the interest of moving on, I say that I am sure that other noble Lords would like her to keep us—and them—closely informed on the developing detail on family hubs and the early years policy. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Court ordered reportsAny court ordered report produced for the purposes of either private or public law cases in family court proceedings under the Children Act 1989 must be done by a qualified social worker.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that all court ordered reports are produced by qualified social workers, for example those under Section 7 of the Children Act 1989.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 183C, which is in my name.
Last year, the revised Working Together guidance removed the requirement for Section 17 assessments—or children-in-need assessments—to be done by a qualified social worker. At the time, although the change was welcomed by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and others, some groups, including Ofsted and the British Association of Social Workers, expressed concerns about the change. This was, in part, because they felt that these practitioners—including family support workers, domestic abuse workers and youth workers—already held high caseloads, and, in part, because they do not typically have the necessary qualifications to do this to the required standard needed by the courts, given the gravity of the decisions taken that are based on these reports.
My Amendment 183C is very simple: it seeks to probe, and get on record, confirmation from the Government that only qualified social workers will be able to prepare reports ordered by the courts. There is real concern that this should be the case, and the new arrangements, which are being brought in to merge targeted help and child-in-need provision, could lead to a change in approach.
A court-ordered report for private law proceedings would not generally meet the threshold for child protection and is therefore likely to be held in the team, which includes non-social work qualified practitioners. As the court will order an assessment, I argue that there should be—and my amendment seeks to probe whether there will be—parity with other private law reports and assessments ordered by Cafcass, which are undertaken by qualified social workers. This work is of course highly contested and complicated, so can the Minister confirm that these concerns are unfounded? I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I do not question the proposition that substantive court reports should be done by qualified practitioners. Such reports are valuable, and often essential, to the court, providing information, analysis, assessments and recommendations—and not just to the court but to the parties who are thereby helped to settle their differences without a full contested hearing.
Until I heard the noble Baroness’s introduction, I wondered at the nature or extent of the problem that prompted her amendment. Most final reports nowadays—and I mean final reports—are well written, well researched and well reasoned. Substantive reports are prepared by the allocated Cafcass officer—or social worker, in my experience—and social workers often state their academic and professional qualifications. Sometimes, the worker has to be a substitute or a trainee, but in those circumstances the report will be checked and countersigned by a team leader. So, although I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, I do not believe there is problem.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 183C, tabled by the Baroness, Lady Barran.
I will begin by giving everyone in the Chamber some reassurance, although I am sure that I do not need to do this. It is absolutely crucial that everyone understands that, for child protection cases, there is a requirement for a social worker. It is imperative that we make that that point absolutely clear. The issue that has perhaps driven the concern is that of quality, and I will go on to give some reassurance about that. At the end of the day, the absolute imperative is that we do right by, and make the best decisions for, children, and that we have the right people available to make sure that that happens.
In line with the current framework, reporting to the courts can come from a range of experts, as we have heard. The legislation, as written, surrounding court-ordered reports provides a degree of flexibility, depending on the circumstances of the case and the discretion of the local authority or the court. When specifically considering Section 7 reports, there is currently no requirement for them to be prepared by a qualified social worker. It is important that there is flexibility in who may prepare these reports, to make sure that they are prepared by the right person, with the right skills and the right experience. Courts and local authorities should have discretion in determining this, too.
We know that most S7 reports are prepared by Cafcass social workers, with a small number of them completed by local authorities. Where social work leadership or oversight is needed, this should be built into the supervision and sign-off of the reports. Of course, the court has a duty to ensure that the reports are of sufficient quality.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I put on record how much I welcome the noble Baroness’s last comments about a round table, and meeting and talking to a range of directors of children’s services. It is reassuring and the right thing to do, and it builds our confidence in the Government’s commitment to get this very important area of policy right. I appreciate that enormously, because I know that ministerial diaries do not have a great deal of slack in them.
On this amendment, just to be clear, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s clarification regarding child protection. However, I was not worried there was a risk of someone who was not a qualified social worker writing a report in those cases, and I was not talking about independent social workers, nor about particular experts, such as the example the noble Baroness gave of someone with specific medical expertise. I was thinking more about the situation of merged targeted help and child in need teams writing reports when Cafcass is not writing the Section 7 report. In that situation you might have, for example, a youth worker or someone who does not have the expertise and training preparing court reports—I am not saying they could not have it, but traditionally they have not had that expertise.
I will reread Hansard, but I think what I heard was that they will be able to write those reports but under supervision from a social worker. If I have misunderstood and they will not be able to, maybe the noble Baroness could set the record straight now, or maybe she would like to go away, double check and write me a very short letter. I would appreciate that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Review: child maintenance enforcement(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review considering whether the overall wellbeing of children is being harmed by the non-commencement of section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 (transfer of arrears) and the uncommenced sections of both the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 and the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023.(2) If the review considers that the overall wellbeing of children is being harmed by the non-commencement of those provisions, the Secretary of State must, within two months of the publication of the review, make a statement setting out the Government’s position on the commencement of those provisions.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I start by saying that it is great to see my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott in the Chamber on the Front Bench. She and I worked together when we were in the Department for Work and Pensions, and I have to say that she was an exceptional Minister for the Child Maintenance Service. What motivated us all was improving the welfare and well-being of children.
I start my intervention by flagging that, frankly, I had quite a lot of arguments or disagreements—I do not think you are allowed to argue in the Lords—with the clerks about the scope of this amendment. The clerks consistently reiterated that trying to do something to make it easier for children to get child maintenance was not connected to the well-being of children because nobody could guarantee that the child maintenance payment would go to the child. I pointed out that, for example, Healthy Start does not go directly to the child; the money still goes to the parent, and the parent can buy a certain amount of food, which you hope will go to the child. I am flagging this now because the intention was to bring a particular amendment about commencing certain legislation, and I will talk to that now.
One of the important things is a recognition—it has been referred to already in previous groups—of the impact of poverty on children. Something like nearly double the proportion of families with a single parent are in poverty—I think that is relative poverty—compared to two-parent families. From my perspective and the research that we did, and from looking into this with my noble friend, we felt that aspects of the cost of living were simply not being addressed and that we needed to get a lot more parents to start paying for the upkeep of their child.
One thing that has been a success overall is that, for just over a decade, 1 million children have been accounted for in arrangements made through the Child Maintenance Service. The split is roughly that 60% of those are in what is called Direct Pay and about 40% are in what is called Collect and Pay.
Direct Pay is where a calculation is made by the Child Maintenance Service and one parent is supposed to pay that to the parent who has the child mainly in their care. For whatever it is worth, there is an annual recalculation, but the department does not monitor precisely what happens there. As regards Collect and Pay, I note the Government’s intention today. I will not get into the merits of the decision announced today by the Government about Collect and Pay; I am happy to leave that for another time.
We have a situation in which there are approximately 390,000 children there. In the quarter to December 2024—the most recent statistics that are available—43.6%, basically 44% of children, did not get a single penny. That is 170,000 children. It is fair to say that they got some contribution: about 45.6% got paid 90% or more, but 22% received anywhere between, basically, zero and 90%.
I am also conscious that the Select Committee on which I serve is doing an inquiry into child maintenance, so I do not intend to delay the consideration of the Committee, because I am sure we will come back to child maintenance in more detail at another time. One key thing that may not be realised is that in these arrangements where the interlocutor is the Government—whether through arranging the Direct Pay calculations or Collect and Pay, where money is taken from one parent and passed to another—we should think about some of the issues that that has caused. I welcome what the Government have done, or will do at a certain point, in changing the benefit deductions so that child maintenance now comes at the very top, but the two issues that I am referring to were sufficiently concerning when I was in government.
That is why we supported what were basically handout Bills, which passed through this House. One related to domestic abuse and the other to moving to something where you could have an administrative liability order. After commissioning Dr Samantha Callan, who has also given evidence to the Select Committee, we brought about a Bill that came through this House. I cannot quite remember whether it was shepherded through by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, or the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, but one did one and one did the other.
I was a bit concerned by the answers given by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about why, in particular, the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act had not been commenced. She started to get into a variety of complications about how complicated it is not only to identify but to justify with evidence whether somebody is a victim of domestic abuse, which concerned me. I appreciate that today the Government have decided to scrap Direct Pay and move everybody on to Collect and Pay, so that will uncover any situation where there is domestic abuse, but I am not sure how long that is going to take, so we still have a real problem. I would love to see it commenced.
On the other aspects and the liability order, this is why we put in place, or helped to facilitate, the child support Act. That was done to make enforcement quicker. Let us be candid. Approximately £700 million is owed to parents. There are a variety of ways in which that can happen. However, one of the ways particularly seems to affect self-employed parents who are due to pay. Without entirely repeating the legislation, the intention of the Act was to speed up the process of getting a liability order. At the moment it takes nearly six months to go to a magistrate, having exhausted multiple other avenues. The outcome of this was supposed to be to reduce that to a maximum of six weeks. I am really concerned that this Act has not been commenced. There are a variety of reasons, I am sure, including something to do with Scotland. However, we should get on with it. A variety of things have been said today about children’s well-being, on phones and other issues that have already been addressed on aspects of poverty strategy. This is a real action that could unlock a lot of money for young children, and I believe that we need to get on with it.
More broadly, I am conscious of the fact that only the Government can do a lot of this administrative liability. That is not just because they are the only ones who can do this sort of order; it is actually in law. If you have an arrangement through the Child Maintenance Service, you cannot then go to the small claims court yourself and say, “This person owes me money”. Everything has to be done through the hands of the Child Maintenance Service. This was one of the devices to try to speed that up.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in her endeavours with this amendment. We worked on child maintenance together in the department. It became a real campaign. We were turning every stone to ensure that money that was due to children got to them. I could keep your Lordships here all night with the tricks that people played to avoid paying their maintenance, although I will not. It was truly shameful that people whose relationship had broken down were taking it out on the children, making life very difficult for those who were trying to bring them up.
Somebody would do Direct Pay and pay up, do their own arrangement and everything would be working well; then, when they thought that the Child Maintenance Service was off their back, what would they do? They would stop paying. The enforcement teams would write saying that they had not paid. They would give a raft of pathetic excuses. The enforcement team would then get involved, it would take for ever and there were these vast outstanding sums that should have gone to children. You would go back to Collect and Pay. There would be sums involved that would need to be taken from the amount of money.
I cannot tell your Lordships the lengths to which people will go not to pay their child maintenance. It is shameful and disgraceful. The sooner that these commencement orders are enacted, the quicker we can get money to children and the better their quality of life. I support the amendments in my noble friend’s name. It was quite something to have the two of us on the case of people who did not pay their child maintenance. I would love to be back there doing that now. I hope that the Minister will pull something out of the hat for this.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too support the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on this. She was asked whether this affects the child’s well-being, since the money does not go to them. Of course it affects their well-being.
I can tell your Lordships of a family that I know. I know that hard cases make bad law, but theirs is pretty typical. The husband disappeared. There were four children at home. Those children have survived only because of the determination and hard work of the mother. If she was not the strong character that she is, those children’s well-being would be a lot worse than it is now. There is no question that it affects the children’s well-being. I quite agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that it is a disgrace. If anything can be done to improve the situation, whether it is the noble Baroness’s amendment or something else, I will be right behind it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have made an incredibly strong case for the importance of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, the Lords Public Services Committee has a live inquiry into this very important topic.
The statistics are stark, as we heard, with over a million children covered by child maintenance agreements but enforcement still not being effective enough and too many parents making no payments at all, paying irregularly or paying insufficient amounts. When I was running the domestic abuse charity SafeLives, non-payment of child maintenance was incredibly frequent and caused huge problems in the lives of children and their mothers. As other noble Lords have said, at its simplest, non-payment exacerbates either the risk of poverty or the actual poverty that so many single-parent families face. In cases of domestic abuse, non-payment was often used as a means of coercion and control over a mother and her child, raising the risk of harm to them both. The anxiety that this creates, and the pressure that this puts on a mother, directly impact the well-being of her child.
We also saw the longer-term impact, in physical and mental health problems for the child. The Institute for Public Policy Research has found that child maintenance currently lifts around 140,000 children out of poverty across the UK. Conversely, when payments are not made, the impact is devastating. Finally, we know that child maintenance is not just a private matter between separated parents but a fundamental determinant of a child’s well-being and future life chances. When maintenance payments fail, society bears the cost through increased demand on public services, educational support and healthcare interventions.
As my noble friend so simply and clearly put it, there are two pieces of legislation on the statute books that need to be commenced. I hope very much that the Minister will confirm that the Government plan to do that and that we can make progress on unlocking the £700 million that belongs to our children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, managed to persuade those in a position to be persuaded that this amendment should have the opportunity to be discussed this evening. There is something refreshing about the idea of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, rightly pursuing people who owe money for their children and who have that responsibility. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the current Secretary of State will be equally relentless in making sure that families are paying for the children for whom they have responsibility, and that is quite right.
I know from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of this amendment is to probe and push on the progress being made with each of the pieces of legislation that she talked about. I hope to provide some reassurance on that.
First, the powers within Section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act enable debt owed to parents or the Secretary of State to be transferred to other parties, including debt collection agencies. This power was introduced as an option to deal with the £3.8 billion debt burden that had accrued under the former Child Support Agency. A proportion of that debt was owed directly to the Secretary of State, and I am assured that the issue of Child Support Agency debt has now been resolved. The Child Maintenance Service has strong and effective enforcement powers, including imposing prison sentences for non-payment.
On the specific point about debt collection agencies, there is no evidence that using debt collection agencies would actually secure more child maintenance than current enforcement powers. In fact, a previous trial absolutely demonstrated that, so there is no evidence that commencing this power would have a positive impact on children’s well-being.
Secondly, the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 introduced powers that, once commenced, would enable an administrative liability order to be made against a parent with outstanding child maintenance arrears. As the noble Baroness says, this introduces savings in court costs and time. I am pleased to confirm that progress is being made to implement the necessary legislation to bring this power into force as soon as possible. The Government are working with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service and the Scottish Government to establish a process for implementing ALOs, and plan to introduce regulations to Parliament by the end of this year.
The Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 recognised that direct pay may not always be appropriate for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The Act intended to provide them greater protection when using the Child Maintenance Service, by allowing them to move to the collect and pay service but only where there is evidence of domestic abuse. The Government recognise that removing opportunities to use the Child Maintenance Service to inflict economic abuse will benefit the well-being of children. However, many victims and survivors would be unable to provide that necessary evidence as required by the Act. For those who could, there are risks that providing evidence of their experience of abuse and reliving events could lead to further trauma.
That is why the Government today published our response to the consultation, Child Maintenance: Improving the Collection and Transfer of Payments. It sets out plans for reforms to introduce a service that protects all parents from financial abuse and, importantly, includes no requirement for victims and survivors to provide evidence of their circumstances. These reforms, therefore, go further than the provisions contained in the 2023 Act to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse. They will have a positive impact on children and their well-being, as more child maintenance liabilities will be enforced, leading to more money going to children, which I know is the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in moving this amendment.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment, although she has already identified that she has other ways to put pressure on the Government to ensure progress, and I have no doubt that she will continue to do so.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
In consideration of what the Minister has said, of which I am conscious of certain aspects, I am pleased, in particular, to hear that the Child Support (Enforcement) Act should come into effect by the end of the year. I will take up some of the other matters to which she referred directly with the responsible Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“Early intervention and screening at first contact with the justice system(1) Within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy to protect and promote the wellbeing of children in police custody.(2) The strategy must set out—(a) steps which should be taken to ensure that all children taken into police custody are screened for SEND and neurodivergence using a nationally approved methodology,(b) the accredited training police officers and legal representatives of the children must complete to support the child’s wellbeing and to aid recognition of SEND and neurodivergence,(c) mandatory access to sources of wellbeing support during any police interview, and(d) minimum standards for the treatment and conditions of children detained in police custody.”
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, on the spur of the moment, having read through the amendment, I have decided that I would like to hear the Minister’s answer.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
I was hoping to speak to this amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
I have to move it otherwise you cannot speak to it.
The linkage between the criminal justice system and those in it and special educational needs, neuro-divergence and many disabilities is something that a lot of us have known about for a long time. This amendment suggests that we get early recognition and assessment of such conditions upon first contact with the justice system. There are lots of schemes that suggest this will help. Indeed, the Metropolitan Police and Merseyside Police have autism awareness badges that provide information so that the police can interact properly with people. It is becoming more and more apparent that, if you have problems with written work or communications, you are going to struggle with the criminal justice system. It is blindingly obvious when you give it a little thought.
We also know that, for people from certain economic backgrounds who might struggle with the education system, criminal activity becomes, to put it bluntly, more of an acceptable career path. I want nothing more, nothing less than to see that the Government are thinking about this and the approach to it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to express some concerns about Amendment 183CD. Its intentions are clearly excellent, but there are nevertheless some real concerns to take note of here.
Diagnoses of special educational needs are made by educational psychologists and experienced clinicians. To ensure there is consistency in diagnosis and treatment, it is important that that continues to be the case. By contrast, “neurodivergence” is a term with no clinical definition or standard. In a world where stigma about mental health conditions has been reduced, or in some cases even reversed, it is, as we all know, increasingly common for teenagers and adults alike to assert their neurodivergence. Sometimes, that leads, in essence, to a claim, by or on behalf of the individual, that they should be able to self-identify into additional services or special treatment.
In the case of the criminal justice system, the hazards of that are obvious, and, if children, parents or their lawyers see an opportunity, they will have a strong incentive to take it, irrespective of whether they have a true diagnosis that warrants that treatment. So, although it is of course sensible for police to obtain information about a child’s diagnosed health or educational conditions that are relevant to their detention and treatment, and so to make proper inquiries, that is one thing, but to set up a parallel diagnostic system leaning on a concept that does not have a clinical definition is another, and is clearly wasteful and risky. Those concerns should affect any consideration that is given to this amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I do not think that the amendment says that it should not be qualified practitioners who carry out the assessments. We already know, in general terms, that 85% of young offenders have special needs. It is important for their future journey that the type of special need is identified by a qualified practitioner.
Baroness Barran (Con)
As drafted, the amendment explicitly suggests what my noble friend referred to. Proposed new subsection (2)(b) says that the strategy must set out
“the accredited training police officers and legal representatives of the children must complete to support the child’s wellbeing and to aid recognition of SEND and neurodivergence”.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am grateful for that clarification. Maybe this could be picked up on Report, but it is hugely important. As my noble friend Lord Addington said, there is a young offenders centre in Wavertree where qualified staff assess pupils and provide for their needs.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this amendment, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thought, from the original groupings, that we were also going to talk about Amendment 502T, but I gather that is no longer the case, so the Committee will be relieved to hear that my speech will be even shorter.
Like my noble friend Lady Spielman, I do not support the noble Lord’s amendment, although I accept absolutely that it is a real sign that a child or young person has been failed by both their family and the services designed to support them if they end up in police custody. But the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s guidance regarding the treatment of children in police custody is clear. It already states that children should not be held overnight in police cells, suggesting that time will typically be very limited in police custody. It is also clear on the role of the local authority where there are concerns about the child’s welfare, and the child’s right to have an appropriate adult present to explain their rights and help them understand the situation.
In practical terms, even if we could magically find an educational psychologist to go to the police station, I question whether that really is a good time to assess a child for special educational needs and disabilities, since it is a particularly stressful situation. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, very specialist skills are required for this. To reiterate, there is no high-quality definition of special educational needs and disabilities and no clinical definition. My noble friend already said that there is no clinical definition for neurodivergence. Currently, definitions of SEND vary from school to school and within different forms of SEND. This confusion would open the door to misinterpretations. For example, a child could have ADHD, but that does not mean that they are incapable of making decisions. With respect to the noble Lord, who is not in his place, I suggest it would be very hard to make the amendment work in practice.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 183CD is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for stepping into the gap so that we could have a brief discussion on it. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not here because he has a lot of experience of, and a background in, this field. It would have been helpful to have heard from him. I will move to the end of the comments I was going to make to reassure him: there are no plans to set up a separate system.
I echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. On screening for special educational needs, disabilities and neurodiversity, it is important to bear in mind that police custody is primarily a place of safety and investigation. Normally, a child would be there for a very short time. There is a high likelihood of a very stressful situation and an unfamiliar environment. For those reasons, we do not believe that police custody is likely to be an appropriate setting to assess special educational needs and disabilities, or neurodivergence.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy intended to protect and promote the well-being of children in police custody, with a particular focus on provisions relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities and children who are neurodivergent. The Government’s manifesto was clear that particular care must be taken when the police are investigating children. Children should be detained in custody only when absolutely necessary, and where there are opportunities to divert children away from custody they should always be considered. It is, as we have heard, particularly important where the child has special educational needs and disabilities or is neurodivergent.
More broadly, the Government’s young futures programme is about intervening earlier to ensure that children and young people who are facing poorer outcomes and are vulnerable to being drawn into crime are identified and offered support in a more systematic way. Effectively identifying the right young people early enough and ensuring that they are accessing evidence-based support is what prevention partnerships will aim to do.
The rights and entitlements of children in police custody are clearly set out in a statutory code of practice, code C to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Under code C, all children in police custody must be provided with an appropriate adult whose role is to safeguard their welfare, rights and effective participation. When a child is detained in custody, the custody officer must notify a parent or guardian as soon as practicable, explaining the reasons for the child’s detention and where they are detained.
In addition, all detainees, including children, have access to health care professionals while in custody. These professionals play a critical role in identifying vulnerabilities and ensuring appropriate care. Interestingly, as we have heard, different police forces are looking at different ways they can train their police officers. Distraction tools such as books, colouring books, puzzles and foam balls have been provided for some police custody suites by organisations such as the Children’s Society and UK autism charities. These help a child to settle while they are in custody. We are of course always looking for examples of good practice.
I am also aware of the work under way in some violence reduction units, such as London and Cleveland, which provide custody navigators for young people in police custody involved in or at risk of serious violence. Custody navigators offer support to those young people at a time of crisis, or at a so-called reachable moment—a moment when otherwise hard-to-reach demographics are away from their usual environment and are potentially more willing to engage with offers of support. Even though we have explored the issue of the appropriateness of some of this work in those settings, it is important to recognise that police officers and legal representatives need to undergo training that equips them for working with vulnerable suspects such as children who are neuro-divergent.
The College of Policing has also published an extensive neurodiversity glossary of terms, intended for all police officers, staff and volunteers, to raise awareness and enhance understanding of neurodiversity. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has a dedicated neurodiversity portfolio chaired by ACC Matt Welsted of West Midlands Police, who has established a neurodiversity working group. Its work includes supporting police officers to design and deliver a service to be proud of, relating to neurodivergent victims, witnesses, suspects and residents. We are all aware that there have been distressing examples where such manifestations have not been recognised; everything is now being done to recognise them.
In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment that he has moved on the noble Lord’s behalf.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I agree that neurodivergence does not really have a case in law; as it is not my amendment, I can be as rude as I like about the drafting. I wanted to get the idea across of a divergence of approach across the police forces in the United Kingdom, as well as divergence between how seriously you take various conditions.
The police will be very aware of how you deal with somebody who has bad literacy, as virtually all the prison population—something like 70% or 80%—has bad literacy. With other conditions, such as autism, there is great concern; people with autism are greatly overrepresented in prisons as well. Perhaps you do not react to social signals, or you do not understand what is going on, or you are easily led. I have heard all these things said about people on the autism spectrum.
What I wanted to get over to the Minister, and I think I did, was the picture of a diverse situation. There are screening tools available suggesting how you should conduct an interview; how you go about that is important. The police have got this horribly wrong in cases in the past, which has meant wasting huge amounts of time and money and caused a lot of distress.
I thank the Minister for her answer. I will go away and consider whether I think it needs to be brought back; rather, I will consult the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and do that. This is a real problem. That is why I took the Committee’s time to move the amendment but, having heard the Minister’s answer, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Walmsley
“Review of free school meal eligibility and pupil premium registration(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of—(a) the number of children in England who are eligible for free school meals but are not claiming them,(b) the number of children who are eligible for free school meals but are not registered for the purposes of pupil premium funding,(c) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds had been uprated in line with inflation since 2018, and(d) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds were set at £20,000 per annum after tax.(2) A review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—(a) barriers preventing eligible children from claiming free school meals,(b) disparities in take-up rates across different regions and demographics, and(c) the financial and educational impact of under-registration on schools and local authorities.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the findings of the review, including any recommendations for improving registration for and take-up of free school meals and pupil premium funding.(4) The review and report required under this section must be repeated annually.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a review of free school meal eligibility and pupil premium registration.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 193 in this group is also in my name. I say again how pleased I am that the Labour Government have broadened the eligibility for free school meals. However, much still needs to be done, particularly on the quality of the meals and the enforcement of the standards, which needed reviewing anyway—that was the subject of Amendment 190, debated last week—and to ensure that all eligible children get their meal. In recent years the whole issue of school meals has been left to flounder, despite their importance to children’s health, and I am pleased that the Government are now picking it up again.
Amendment 189 calls for an annual review, with the results to be laid before Parliament, of the barriers to all eligible children receiving their free school meal, and clarification of how many eligible children are missing out. The review must assess how many children are eligible, under whatever the current threshold is, and how many would be eligible if the threshold had been uprated since 2018. It must also assess how many would be eligible if the threshold were to be set at £20,000 per year after tax. Because of the inequalities that we know about, the review would have to cover regional and demographic disparities in take-up rates and the financial and educational impact on schools and local authorities, bearing in mind that a child on free school meals currently brings the pupil premium with him or her to the school for education purposes. That set of reviews would give us more information about how the system was working and would form a very useful underpinning for the development of policy in future.
Amendment 193 would ensure the auto-enrolment of all children eligible for free school meals and expand eligibility even further than the recent change to households whose income is less than £20,000 per year after tax. That would be yet another step in the right direction. I know that the Secretary of State, in making the recent announcement that all children in families on universal credit will be eligible for free school meals next year, claimed that this simpler system will make it easier for families to register. However, it is still not the same as auto-enrolment, and schools as well as families are losing out because they are losing the pupil premium that comes with FSM.
The evidence to the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee was clear that there are many children who would become eligible, under whatever threshold, who may not get their free school meal, such as it is, and that there are many children in poverty whose parents struggle to pay for a hot meal for their children. These parents or families, eligible but not registered for FSM, often send the child to school with a packed lunch of dubious nutritional value—we were given several examples—not because they do not care about their children’s health but because they cannot afford the price of a decent packed lunch or a hot meal. It is these unregistered families, and those just above the eligibility threshold, who suffer the most from regulations.
Free school meals, and breakfasts, are one of the most important levers that the Government have to ensure that, however poor the parents, however lacking their cooking facilities at home, whatever kind of food desert the family live in, the children can get two healthy meals every school day—if they also get a free breakfast—to ensure that they grow up strong and a healthy weight, with no rotting teeth and no wrong food preferences to take through life and make them susceptible to obesity. I hope the Government will agree with these amendments, and I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendments 191 and 192 are in my name and are closely related to that already introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for offering her support to my amendments.
Amendment 191 is essentially a different way of getting to the same intention as Amendment 193. We are aiming to get auto-enrolment so that every child who is eligible for free school meals gets them, and surely that is something that the Government want to do. I have no particular opinion on whether Amendment 191 or Amendment 193 is the best way to do it; we can debate that after this point, although I would love to hear the Government say, “We want to do this and we’re going to do it, so you don’t have to worry about this on Report”.
The best stats on the previous form of free school meals, before the Government’s recent extension, showed that up to 250,000 children, or about 11% of those eligible for free school meals, missed out because it is an opt-in process. That is a point that my honourable friend Ellie Chowns in the other place has already highlighted, so I will not go through it in great detail. However, I will note that the Fix Our Food research programme showed that it is children from non-majority communities and lone-parent households who are more likely not to be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Inequalities here multiply themselves time and again.
Reasons the charity give for this include parents struggling to fill out the complex forms, language barriers or that there may be a simple lack of awareness. There may also be stigma around free school meals. I hope the Committee will join me in saying there is no reason why there should be, but the practical reality is that we know there is. I also note that the Greater London Authority has put resources into auto-enrolment, showing that it is possible to make a difference, but around the rest of the country that is not available.
I come back to my point about stigma, because Amendment 192 would extend free school lunches to all primary schoolchildren in state-funded schools. I will quote a question that was put to me by a year 7 pupil from Lordswood Boys’ School in Birmingham this morning—and, no, I did not put him up to it; it was not prompted in any way. Some other questions identified me as a representative of the Government and I had to correct that misapprehension, but he simply said to me: “Why don’t we get free school meals?” That is something that shows a really high level of awareness. People feel the inequality and suffering that has come from the lack of those free school meals.
Amendment 192, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has kindly backed, would not actually help that year 7 boy. This is me and the Green Party going for the moderate, middle-of-the-road option, because Green Party policy is free school meals for all school pupils, which would help that pupil in Birmingham. What we have here is simply an amendment for all primary school pupils, and part of the reason for that is the example from London of how positive it has been.
I note that an evaluation of this has been conducted already to see what has happened. There has been a lived-experience evaluation by the Child Poverty Action Group and an implementation evaluation as well. This policy, unsurprisingly, was really popular and had a very high level of take up—between 88% and 90% across three school terms. Among the positive outcomes, 84% of parents said it had improved the family budget. One-third of parents said that the policy meant they had less debt. Three in five parents said they were able to spend more money on food at home as a result. We talk so often in your Lordships’ House about our broken food system and how it is so difficult to get a healthy diet.
There are more positives. More than half of parents thought their child was trying new foods as a result of being exposed to them at school. This is the kind of thing we might not think about, but more than half of parents said that it saved them time in the morning that they had been forced to use making packed lunches. We all know that can make a real difference to families. More than one-third of parents thought their children were concentrating better in lessons as a result.
This is a moderate challenge to the Government to look at what has been achieved in London. We know the levels of inequality between London and the rest of the county. Let us break down that inequality and make it better, at least for our primary school pupils.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to various amendments concerning free school meals. Much as I welcome the Bill’s provision for free breakfasts, there remains a strong case for complementing them with free school dinners. I will scrap half of my speech to save time.
This case was summarised well by the Food Foundation:
“School food has the power to enable not just better health and wellbeing, but improved attendance, better pupil outcomes and wider social benefits including reduced inequalities. Free School Meals can break down barriers to opportunity and level the playing field so that every child can have the best start in life”.
In a nutshell, children who have free school meals are healthier and happier and do better in school, as well as later in life.
The amendments would thus contribute to both parts of this Bill: children’s well-being and their ability to benefit from their education. I therefore warmly welcome the recent announcement of the extension of free school meals to all children in families on universal credit from next September, with transitional protection associated with the roll out of universal credit lasting until then.
I will ask one small question and, if it cannot be answered now, perhaps it can be answered in writing. I understand that, if someone is on universal credit at the start of the school year, they will retain entitlement for the whole of that school year, in recognition of the fluctuating circumstances of many on low incomes. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that that is the case and also say whether someone whose parent comes on to universal credit during the school year will still be entitled? When we debated the Statement, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti made an impassioned plea on human rights grounds that we might one day aspire to universal free school meals—an ambition that my noble friend the Minister noted.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I speak briefly to the two amendments in this group proposed by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which I have signed.
In particular, I want to probe and press the Government on free school meals and auto-enrolment. I know from lived experience how they changed my life. Rather than running home from school to have my dinner and then running back, with very little engagement and social time with my peers, we were instead able to eat together, talk, socialise and, in my case, discover some new foods such as lemon meringue and cheese flan—I kid you not: if my secretary and PA support, Lisa, from Sheffield Council were here, she would tell your Lordships that, often, when I went to conferences on behalf of Sheffield Council, I would say, “Ask them if they do school dinners, because that’s what I would like”. We joke, but sometimes young people get a set menu and do not get a chance to taste other foods. I am of south Asian origin, and I must say that onion bhajis did not hit the mark at my school.
More seriously, the other issue that I want to challenge the Government on is the one around the pupil premium. We have all seen that, when that extra support goes in early on, particularly when it is for young people who could benefit from free school meals, the extra money empowers teachers and teaching staff in schools to decide what they need for the young person—it could be an additional teaching assistant in schools or it could be one-to-one support or after-school stuff. We are not just talking about school meals here; we are talking about things that would change the lives of young people.
I want to press the Government and I want the Minister to respond to the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about auto-enrolment. They are pushing in the right direction, but they are not quite there—and we would like, at this stage or at the next stage, to push the Government to do the right thing. I welcome the announcement that we heard around what will happen next year with more young people being able to access free school meals. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 189 and 191 to 193 en bloc. I thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to this group thus far.
On the Thursday just past, we heard some excellent speeches in your Lordships’ House on the various issues relating to the provision of healthy, nutritious food in schools and the possibility of providing eligible children with free school meals and activities during the holidays. It is most opportune that we now have the ability constructively to challenge His Majesty’s Government around the base provision and right of those children eligible to take advantage of free school meals during term time.
Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review free school meal eligibility and pupil premium registration. It is absolutely correct that schools and local authorities should have complete and full data, and that those pupils who are eligible for free school meals actually take them up. They are clearly the pupils most likely to need free school meal provision. If His Majesty’s Government would please listen to the eminently sensible suggestions from other noble Lords last week, including those in this Committee right now, those meals will consist of healthy, nutritious food, with fruit, vegetables and low sugar levels in both food and drink. Healthy nutritious food and free school meals for every pupil eligible will hugely aid the learning and development of children in the UK.
Both Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, and Amendment 193 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seek to change the system of enrolment for free school meals so that there is auto-enrolment for all eligible families. It appears that difficulties can arise during the application process and, for some, the forms can be overly complicated, but it is crucial that eligible families are able to access this provision. We understand that changing the system in this way is far from straightforward, but some local authorities are investigating how to make such a system work, and our observation to the Minister is that this is surely worth fighting for. Ensuring that all pupils who should receive free school meals do indeed receive them would, we believe, be a top priority on every Bench of your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 192, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, seeks to expand free school meals to all children in state-funded primary schools. While we agree that it is vital for all students to be able to access a healthy, nutritious meal at school, we suggest that this scheme would be potentially expensive to implement and that there could be a more efficient and appropriate allocation of resources and funding within school budgets. That is not to say that providing free school lunches for all primary school children in state-funded schools is a bad idea—in a perfect world, of course, it is a great idea—but we suggest that a detailed analysis is required of how much it would cost. Is it realistic to have some contribution from parents, even if small? What impact would it have on the other elements of school life if the school and the local authority had to find the funding without additional resource from His Majesty’s Government? These are just some of the questions we seek answers for from the Minister, and we look forward to hearing His Majesty’s Government’s response.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to free school meals and follow on, of course, from the interesting debate that we had last week on wider issues relating to school food. Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would extend the provision of free school meals to all pupils attending state-funded primary schools. The Government are clear about the benefits that children enjoy when they receive a free and nutritious lunch. They support attainment, because hungry children cannot concentrate and learn. By improving behaviour, nutritious and free meals also lead to better outcomes, meaning that children can get the best possible education and chance to succeed in work and life.
It is in recognition of these benefits that this Government have confirmed that all children in households receiving universal credit will be eligible to receive free meals from September 2026. This represents a significant expansion of support to over 500,000 children. The Government have chosen, though, to focus this on the most disadvantaged households, which we are backing with over £1 billion in funding. This is on top of the 3.4 million children who are already provided with free meals by the Government. Moreover, by widening access to free meals, and doing it in the way that this Government have chosen, we will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament, reversing the trend of rising child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government.
This is the priority that this Government have decided on. Of course, it goes alongside the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to every primary school pupil, which we had the opportunity to discuss last week, meaning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that significantly more children will have the benefit of both a free breakfast and a free lunch. Alongside that, as we have talked previously about, we are expanding government-funded childcare and legislating to cap the number of branded school uniform items. These are all serious developments in the Government’s plan to break the unfair link between background and opportunity.
Amendments 191 and 193, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, seek, as we have heard, to ensure that all households meeting the eligibility criteria for free meals would automatically receive this without having to make a claim—something which is required under current provisions. The first and most important point is that the process of now linking free school meal entitlement to universal credit makes it far simpler and more likely that there will effectively be an automatic understanding of the eligibility for free school meals. We want to ensure that all families who need it are able to claim the support they are eligible to receive. That is why we provide an eligibility checking system to local authorities; this is an online portal that makes verifying eligibility for free meals quick and easy. We are rolling out improvements to this system, to allow parents and schools to review eligibility for free school meals independently, which will make it even easier for families to claim the support they are entitled to. These actions will support the take-up of free meals. However, we will keep under review the extent to which free meals, and all the benefits that come with them, are being taken up.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
The Minister twice mentioned monitoring the take-up. Do the Government know how many families should be claiming free school meals? That would surely help in understanding how close the Government are to reaching the goal that all noble Lords are asking for, which is free school meals for everyone who is eligible. What is that number? I do not need the answer now, but do the Government have that information, because presumably they should do?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My point was that linking free school meal entitlement to universal credit will make it much easier both for families to apply and for us to monitor the levels. However, I will respond to the noble Lord on his specific point.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this important group of amendments. I assure the Minister that, as I have said today and last week, I very much welcome the expansion of eligibility for free school meals.
On Amendment 189, it is important that when the Government come, as the Minister has promised they will, to monitor the uptake under the new eligibility rules, there is enough detail in there. My amendment mentions demographics, regional differences and cultural differences and so on. All that would give a good and useful set of information to help the Government to develop policy even further.
I am not going to go on any further about free school meals—I could go on all night. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, resisted it and so will I. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 17 June.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
The House may recall that, on 12 February, the Government made a Statement confirming that we intend to introduce short-term support for large-scale biomass generators to ensure the UK’s continued security of supply. Following a robust public consultation process, we published our consultation response, which set out that legislative changes are needed to enable the Government to provide support to existing biomass generators through a new low-carbon dispatchable contract for difference. I should emphasise that while this instrument enables the provision of new support, the final decision on whether to do so will be made following the conclusions drawn from our thorough internal assessment and commercial negotiations.
The draft SI will enable a new low-carbon dispatchable CfD to be signed with existing biomass generators. That is not possible currently. It amends the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014 such that a person is eligible for a CfD in respect of a biomass station where it is intended that the existing biomass station will continue to generate electricity. As is the case today, the Low Carbon Contracts Company —the LCCC—will be the counterpart to any new CfD.
The second amendment in the SI relates to sustainability. The Government support only the use of sustainable biomass, and we continue to review sustainability requirements so that we can remain aligned to the latest evidence. This instrument will amend the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations 2014 to allow the Secretary of State to direct the LCCC to implement amendments relating to sustainability obligations within the new CfD. This will mean that the Government can make changes to sustainability requirements within the new contract to ensure that they keep pace with the latest evidence. I should note that these regulations were originally laid before the House on 11 March but were relaid on 2 April to correct minor drafting errors.
I would like to outline the Government’s carefully considered position on large-scale biomass generation, which provides around 5% of the UK’s annual electricity generation. Current support for these generators, under CfDs and the renewables obligation, ends in 2027. I assure the House that the Government maintain an unwavering commitment to our energy security, and we will do everything we can to secure a reliable energy system, for now and the future, even if it means making hard decisions.
My department considered a range of factors before deciding whether to provide further support for these generators. First, we took analysis from the National Energy System Operator and have concluded that without further support for large-scale biomass the country could face security of supply risks between 2027 and 2031. Relying on alternative options to come online in this timeframe, such as building new gas plants, would carry significant risks.
Secondly, we undertook comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives. Our central projections indicate that, on the right terms and if playing a much more limited role than today, biomass generation can be the lowest-cost option for bill payers during this period.
Lastly, we will introduce strengthened sustainability requirements from the outset of any new agreement. Importantly, this SI will also allow the sustainability measures to be enhanced throughout the duration of the contract, in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice. These factors represent a substantial shift from past arrangements on sustainability and value for money.
We have also listened to stakeholders and recognise the strength of concerns about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. When such decisions arise in future, the Government will not be left in similar circumstances. Therefore, we will undertake the essential work on strong and credible low-carbon alternatives to ensure that we have proper options in four years’ time.
I acknowledge that the amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, focuses on concerns about Drax. Earlier this year, the Government confirmed that we had agreed heads of terms for a new CfD with Drax. This instrument would enable that CfD, should a final decision be taken to provide it, but it will equally enable similar agreements with any other biomass generators. It does not guarantee that a CfD will be offered to, or agreed with, any biomass generator, nor specify the contract terms, including time limits, for any individual company. These draft regulations are about ensuring we have the option available to respond to security-of-supply needs and deliver low-carbon electricity to the grid at the lowest cost to the consumer.
Let me be clear that the proposed agreement with Drax would limit generation to times when the system and in turn consumers most require it. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar energy instead. This means that Drax will be supported to operate less than half as often as it currently does. As a result, the deal would halve the amount paid in subsidies compared with existing arrangements—equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household in annual bills. When compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market, it will save consumers £170 million in subsidies each year.
The agreement also introduces tough new measures on sustainability, and we will appoint an independent adviser to support the development of policy and practice in biomass sustainability and to ensure that these keep pace with the emerging science and international landscape. However, this debate is about the legislation and not about Drax.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report on this instrument. As I mentioned, this instrument is not specific to Drax; instead, it will enable support to be provided to Drax, or to any other biomass generators, should a decision be taken to provide it. As I have already noted, if the Government decide to provide support to Drax, that will offer substantially better value for money for consumers.
On the Select Committee’s comments on sustainability, I can clarify that the KPMG reports are internal fact-finding documents commissioned by Drax on existing sustainability requirements. The reports do not belong to the Government or to Ofgem; they belong to Drax. It is for Drax to decide whether to release them. Furthermore, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is considering the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on biomass, including its recommendations on Drax’s sustainability assurances. Work is under way to strengthen the monitoring, reporting and verification arrangements, and the department issued a full response to the Public Accounts Committee report on 16 June.
In summary, these draft regulations represent an important step in ensuring our energy security and protecting bill payers now and into the future. They make the necessary amendments to enable support to be provided to biomass generators when existing schemes end in 2027. This will enable us to maintain the UK’s security of supply, deliver value for money for consumers and enhance sustainability requirements. I beg to move that these regulations be supported by noble Lords.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to clearly identify their subject as the Drax wood-burning power station, and do not provide for a means for Drax to be held to account for its environmental impacts and costs; and further regrets that the Government have not justified the price premium offered to Drax or published key documents underpinning the Regulations”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as I think the Minister has already alluded to, this amendment to the Motion closely mirrors the comments made both by our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and by the Public Accounts Committee. It regrets that these draft regulations
“fail to clearly identify their subject as the Drax wood-burning power station”.
I was listening closely to the Minister and, interestingly, I do not think I heard him say “Drax” until he got to speaking about the amendment. He spoke about the difficulty, as he saw it, of providing alternatives for Drax; as I think we all know, we are not going to suddenly magic up an alternative Drax out of nowhere that will suddenly start generating electricity for us. I refer noble Lords, and the many people who I know are listening, to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reference to how this is about Drax—that is what it has to be.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking in the way she did. I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which produced the report she referred to. I ought also to declare a former interest in that I was a director of a company that briefly, while I was a director, owned Lynemouth, a generator which could notionally benefit from this scheme. But, contrary to what the Minister said, these regulations are virtually all about Drax. As we said in our report,
“the main financial beneficiary of the proposed new arrangements would be … Drax … by far the largest biomass generator in the UK.”
I find these regulations remarkable in at least four ways. First, their presentation is remarkably shifty. The title, draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations, does not tip you off that what we are actually talking about here is massive subsidies for massive carbon dioxide emissions. We are talking about Drax. As the SLSC pointed out, it was also quite odd to produce an Explanatory Memorandum which never mentions the word “Drax”.
Secondly, the regulations are remarkable because the costs are remarkable. Drax has already enjoyed £6.5 billion of subsidy, and here we go with another £1.8 billion—over £1 million a day. The price of the electricity produced and sold, £113 per megawatt hour, is well above that paid for offshore wind farm electricity, also under similar contracts for difference. Thirdly, it is remarkable that the emissions are so high. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, they are 18% higher than comparable coal-fired generator emissions. Drax will remain the UK generator producing the most carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced.
Fourthly, it is remarkable that, whereas Drax used to be pushed as the site at some future date of a carbon sequestration and storage scheme, that has been dropped. That story does not exist any more. There is no CSS in these regulations. There is nothing about CSS, I assume, in the contracts with the company. The company has in fact paid off the staff who were working on CSS, so that story is dead.
Therefore, it is counterintuitive that Drax is still sailing under a green flag. It is a delight to hear a distinguished former leader of the Green Party denouncing that flag: it should not be on this pirate ship. Given the opportunity cost of the sequestration forgone in the forests of western Canada that are cut down, and the cash cost of processing that wood into pellets and shipping it across to the United Kingdom, the sustainability story about Drax was never particularly convincing. The Public Accounts Committee was quite right to say in its report of 25 April that:
“The current approach relies heavily on generators self–reporting the sustainability of the biomass they use and third–party certification schemes, giving a sense that generators are marking their own homework”.
It is more than a sense; they are marking their own homework. The report continues:
“Neither DESNZ nor Ofgem know whether the approach to assurance is effective in making sure biomass is from sustainable sources”.
They do not know.
Drax commissioned KPMG to write a report. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to it, so I do not need to. The Minister says that it is not for the Government or Ofgem to pass it to us. The PAC said that it should be shown to Parliament—that it should be published. My committee, the SLSC, said that it should be published before this debate, which surely is right. The Minister’s argument is that it is not his to publish. He is the man who is awarding this enormous contract to the company—£1.8 billion. It is open to him to suggest to the company that it might assist the Government in deciding in favour of what the company wants, if the company were to do what Parliament has asked. However, that does not appear to have happened. We do not know what KPMG said because we are not allowed to see the report. That seems rather high-handed of the company and suggests that it may have something to hide.
There may be a case for Drax, which the Minister touched on when he talked about security of supply. He did not mention this, but that case could be dealing with the risk of a black start. Having these huge turbines turning up there could be convenient if you get a crisis and a black start. I could be persuaded that we need to keep this immensely expensive scheme going for security of supply, but it would have been more honest if the Government, in their Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations, had made that case, which they did not. Instead, we have their sustainability case—which does not fly, for the reasons given—to explain the astonishing cost of the scheme.
The selling of the scheme looked shifty; the refusal to produce the KPMG report on sustainability looks high-handed. The noble Baroness’s regret amendment was well justified and exactly right. Had she been in the mood to press for a vote, I would happily have voted for it.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I am really concerned about the legislation in front of us, because it seeks to extend subsidies to highly profitable corporations, at least until 2031. Inevitably, the major beneficiary is Drax, which is the UK’s single largest emitter of CO2. In 2023, its electricity-generating operations generated 11.5 million tonnes of CO2. Add to that the carbon emissions arising from shipping—transporting wood pellets—and it has also been destroying young trees and biodiversity. For that, the Government are going to reward it with possibly around £500 million a year, but some estimates are that it could be £2.5 billion by 2031.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is an unusual pleasure for me to be able to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but tonight my cup floweth over, since I am also able to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Sikka. I agreed with almost every word that both had to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I approach this issue from opposite perspectives. The noble Baroness is primarily concerned about reducing CO2 emissions; I am primarily concerned about reducing the cost of energy. But we both reached the same conclusion that this statutory instrument is fundamentally indefensible.
The whole process of subsidising the Drax power station illustrates the absurdities to which net zero is leading us. It is not just the cost, or the pretence that we are reducing CO2 emissions when this is the biggest emitter of CO2 in the country; it is about all the attempts to cover up and obfuscate both the enormous costs and the minimal benefits. When you start believing in fairy tales—the fairy tale that achieving net zero will be costless—you end up denying reality and being economical with the truth.
Let me give a few examples of that obfuscation. The excellent report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, sits, drew attention to the failure of the Explanatory Memorandum to even mention Drax. Yet it is over-whelmingly the major beneficiary from the proposed contracts for difference. Clearly, the department hoped we would not see that this was yet another bung to the company. That report also highlighted the repayment made by Drax of some £25 million. Yet there is no clear explanation of what exactly the company had done wrong that required that repayment. It is pretty clear that it is, in effect, hush money to cover up non-compliance with the sustainability regulations.
Another example is the reference in the PAC report Government’s Support for Biomass to the investigation conducted by Bloomberg in 2022, which concluded that Drax may previously have gamed the system to the detriment of consumers. It alleges that
“Drax shut down power generation and sold wood pellets on the open market to avoid paying back £639 million of subsidies as wholesale electricity prices spiked”.
Although the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero reassured the PAC that
“the new arrangements will be more robust, it did not offer any explanation of how it had made sure that there would be no loopholes that allow Drax to continue to game the system”.
Then there is the failure to publish the KPMG review of the Drax supply chain. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee called on the Government to publish that audit before this debate. I am not aware that the Government have done so. The Minister did not in his introduction explain whether he had done so and, if not, why. I will ask him to address that issue when he returns at the end of this debate. The report may not belong to Drax, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the Government are the customer. They insist on a number of conditions that Drax has to fulfil; they could easily insist that publication of that report is one of them.
Will the Government commit to reporting to Parliament the outcome of the independent audit commissioned by Ofgem? When I worked in the City as a financial analyst, if ever I came across a company about which there were so many unanswered questions, I would have guessed it was run by Robert Maxwell or someone of that ilk.
So, how much is Drax costing us? Since 2022, support for Drax has cost the Government—that is, the taxpayer—£6.5 billion. According to the consultancy Ember, that figure was rising at nearly £1 billion a year before this latest measure. This CFD will cost £113 per megawatt hour at the value of the pound in 2012, which has risen with inflation since then and will rise further in future. The PAC admits that that is
“far more than will be paid to offshore windfarms and other renewable generators”
under recently awarded contracts for difference.
The justification given by the company and, presumably, accepted by the Government is that electricity from Drax is dispatchable and therefore worth substantially more than intermittent electricity from wind or solar generators. That raises the question: why have the Government not accepted Professor Dieter Helm’s recommendation that all electricity generators should bid for the cost of firm power; that is, including the additional costs they will impose on the system for back-up power for when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine? Instead, the Government palm us off with references to the levelised cost of energy, which is practically meaningless and not something that anyone ever pays.
Then we come to sustainability. Will the new sustainability criteria incorporated in the CfDs apply to electricity generated outside a CfD? CfDs will apply only 27% of the time. That is a question the PAC raised. Again, I hope the Minister will answer that when he replies to this debate.
The idea that burning wood pellets is sustainable, given that they emit more CO2 per megawatt hour even than coal, is hard to credit, especially given the additional emissions involved in collecting the timber, drying it, pelletising it, and transporting it from western Canada, often across the continent and then across the Atlantic. The theory is that felled trees will be replaced and fallen branches would have decayed and emitted CO2. I planted 30 trees around my house nearly four decades ago, not to mention more since, and it will be several decades before they are ready to fell. Lots of old branches that were lying around then are still lying around and have not yet rotted, perished and emitted their CO2.
Anyone who thinks that sustainability is to be measured on a timescale of at least half a century, and probably a century, cannot seriously be arguing that we are in a climate crisis. If we have a century to get the CO2 back that we are emitting now, we are not in a climate crisis. That, in effect, is what the Government are saying by asking us to go on subsidising Drax. I shall certainly support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, if she calls a vote on her amendment.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, we are a remarkably united House tonight. I too support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am not the first to say that the case for biomass is very weak. It is, in effect, a historical anomaly. As others have said, biomass emits more carbon than coal. As the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, just pointed out, it takes decades—perhaps half a century, perhaps even longer—to reclaim that carbon from the atmosphere.
Actually, Drax’s homework has been marked. Nobody has mentioned the remarkable and excellent “Panorama” documentary made by Joe Crowley just under three years ago, which demonstrated very clearly that Drax was burning primary ancient forests, which would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to replace. That, in my view, is unconscionable. Nobody has said this so far, but Drax is not an organisation that inspires any confidence. For those who saw “Panorama”, it put up a remarkably weak case for what it was doing. Its handling of a senior executive whistleblower—again, not mentioned so far—was, to put it mildly, unsavoury.
I appreciate the difficulties that Drax presents for the Government. It is a major employer. It produces a significant share of our national electricity supply, as others have pointed out—we could not possibly close it down tomorrow—and it gives that energy supply on tap. The question for the Minister, which I hope he will address in his closing remarks, is: will the Government, who must have heard the passion, power and effectiveness of the arguments from across the House this evening, now consider a proper long-term plan for the phasing out of Drax and for reinvesting in real renewables?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I too speak in favour of the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, against the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield. This SI makes existing large-scale biomass electricity generators eligible for contracts for difference. The Government argue that that is needed to prevent security of electricity supply risks after 2027, when the current schemes for many biomass generators expire.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the provisions of the instrument for us, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this amendment. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, we are a remarkably united House this evening.
At first glance, this statutory instrument appears to be a modest continuation of established policy, extending the contracts for difference schemes to support low-carbon electricity and to maintain energy security. However, the context in which this instrument is being brought forward raises several serious concerns that deserve the full attention of the House. The current contracts for difference in renewables obligation schemes for biomass are due to expire in 2027. This instrument effectively paves the way for a new subsidy agreement, likely to last until 2031.
The Drax Group in particular, although not explicitly mentioned by name, is expected to be the principal beneficiary. I hear what the Minister said about this being about the legislation and not about Drax, but this does seem a little disingenuous. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, these regulations are really all about Drax. The fact that this is not disclosed in the legislation itself, nor even in the Explanatory Memorandum, is a point rightly criticised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
When public money is involved on this scale and given to a corporate entity, transparency should not be optional. That omission is not merely a technical failing; it obstructs parliamentary scrutiny, undermines public confidence, and weakens accountability in a policy area already under significant environmental and fiscal scrutiny. We do not question the Government’s intent or commitment to safeguard energy supply, but we should be candid about the trade-offs. Biomass is not a low-cost nor a convincingly low-carbon option, and serious questions remain about its long-term sustainability and effectiveness, as well as its role in the energy mix.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the subsidies received by Drax, and my noble friend Lord Lilley laid out a compelling case. According to the think tank Ember, Drax received £869 million in subsidies for biomass in 2024 alone. The proposed strike price for biomass under the new contracts for difference is expected to exceed £160 per megawatt hour—more than twice the strike price for offshore wind in the most recent contracts for difference allocation round, which averaged £57 per megawatt hour.
These are not trivial differences. Ultimately, these subsidies are paid for by consumers through their energy bills. If affordability is a government priority then it is worrying that the numbers do not appear to have been considered more carefully.
The Government have stated that sustainability standards will increase, albeit only from 2027, and that Drax will undertake a full audit of its supply chains. Those intentions are welcome, but the delay is difficult to defend if, as the Government admit, the current sustainability criteria are already insufficient. Furthermore, Drax was criticised in the other place for alleged attempts to deliberately conceal, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned today, the unsustainable sources of its wood pellets, and has thus far not responded to calls to publish the 2022 KPMG report on where the wood has been coming from. I absolutely hear what the Minister said about these being internal documents but, given that Drax is in receipt of considerable amounts of public money, publishing the report would surely allay concerns, and it is disappointing that Drax has thus far failed to do so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, the SLSC has called for the release of the report prior to the legislation passing.
The Government themselves have acknowledged that biomass is not a long-term solution, yet they now propose to extend generous subsidies through to 2031, well beyond the expiry of the current schemes. That contradiction prompts a broader question: what is the Government’s long-term energy strategy? Where is the sustained investment in cheaper, cleaner technologies such as offshore wind, solar, tidal and energy storage, all of which offer better returns for consumers and for the environment?
In the light of these issues, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the following. Was a full cost-benefit analysis conducted ahead of these proposals and will it be published? Are further changes to biomass eligibility under contracts for difference under active consideration? Will the Government commit to greater transparency in future secondary legislation, particularly where identifiable corporate beneficiaries stand to gain? This is not about opposing low-carbon generation—far from it; we support it—but, when billions of pounds of public money is at stake, climate benefits are uncertain and the cost to consumers is high, we must demand full transparency and sound policy rationale. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Finn, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Sikka, Lord Lilley and Lord Birt, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their contributions, and I thank the Front-Benchers for their summing up.
We are where we are with this. We have to play with the cards we have, and we cannot restock the deck because we have been left with this. We do not believe that biomass is a long-term solution to the country’s energy problems, but we are faced with a dilemma at the moment regarding security of supply, whereby 5% of the energy we use is provided and produced by biomass. That is something we have to consider. We know it is not a long-term solution, so we need to look at other sources of energy to replace it. That is what the Government are actively doing—it is part of our net-zero ambitions to do that—but we need time to do it, and to fill the gap we need this statutory instrument in order to go forward and secure that.
This Government are steadfastly committed to maintaining our energy security and protecting bill-payers now and into the future. The instrument under discussion today will enable us to reduce risks to security of supply in the late 2020s and early 2030s by facilitating short-term support for biomass. If this is pushed to a vote, noble Lords will be voting against security of supply. Additionally, the regulations allow for the further strengthening of sustainability requirements, to reflect the latest evidence, during the delivery of any support.
I hope I can deal with all the questions raised, but if not, I am sure that we can write to Members. Why did we not mention Drax? Supposedly this is about Drax and nothing else, but in fact it is about any biomass facility that can help fill the gap, such as Lynemouth in Northumberland. Other, smaller producers of biomass around the country can also have access to this—I know there have been discussions with Lynemouth—so it is not just about Drax.
Why have the Government agreed a high strike price for this asset? The new arrangement halves the level of consumer subsidy compared to existing arrangements, equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household in annual bills. The agreement is for a substantially lower reduced load factor. We want seed to be used for 27% of the time as part of the baseload—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The alleged saving is compared with the current price, which is astonishingly high. It is a saving because the wholesale price of electricity all over is going down. The contracts for difference for wind power are now being set at a level about two-thirds of where they were a couple of years ago. This minor saving compared with the previous exorbitant level of subsidy should not be exaggerated.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. We were not trying to exaggerate anything. We are comparing that with the fact that, if we do not do this, we will end up with the price of gas at £170 million per year compared with some saving to households. We have to bear that in mind as well.
There was talk about the outcome of Ofgem’s investigation into Drax. The recent comprehensive Ofgem investigation into Drax compliance entered its report in August 2024. It found no evidence that Drax had incorrectly received subsidy payments, and no subsidies were issued for unsustainable biomass. However, Drax accepted the findings of the investigation and made a redress payment of £25 million. Ofgem’s investigation was very comprehensive and included a careful review of the KPMG report, as well as a wider review of more than 3,000 other documents. Both the Government and Ofgem are confident in this conclusion. Moreover, Ofgem has required Drax to undertake a full international audit of the profiling data from its supply chain. I hope that answers the concerns that noble Lords may have.
To address the other points on the Ember report on Drax being Britain’s largest CO2 emitter in 2023—this also answers the question about trees, and not all trees take four decades to grow—the carbon in biomass is emitted as carbon dioxide from the chimney of the power plant when the biomass is burned. However, the carbon dioxide emissions from sustainable biomass are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. Unlike fossil carbon, which was turned into gas or coal millions of years ago, the carbon released was recently absorbed from the atmosphere and is reabsorbed continuously through regrowth.
Woody feedstocks for bioenergy are typically low-value forestry—sawmill residue from trees that would have been felled regardless for higher-value usage. Therefore, in contrast with fossil emissions, we can consider sustainable biomass systems to be carbon neutral at the stack when taking forest growth, harvest and product use into account.
What you also have to realise with this SI is that one of the parts of it is about sustainability. Part of the contract is that biomass comes from 100% renewable sources, not 70%, so that is a massive increase. We will appoint someone to examine and look into the sustainability of the whole process.
We can have criticisms, and I think we all agree that we do not see this as the long-term answer to the energy problems that we have, but it is fair to say that we have to be realistic. We cannot be ideological purists. We could have an energy gap of 5%, and biomass provides 5% of our energy needs. We should not be blind to that fact. We are making improvements. It is about the regulations and not just about Drax; Lynemouth is talking about taking part in this process as well. It does not matter about the size of the biomass facility; they can all be part of this.
I finish by saying that the draft regulations in front of the House today will enable the Government to continue to deliver security of supply at the lowest cost for consumers, while protecting and enhancing vital sustainability measures. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Lord Birt (CB)
There was a clear and welcome hint at the beginning of the Minister’s remarks that Drax was temporary, not here permanently. Are the Government considering framing an ordered plan, with a timeline to close down Drax?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will get back to the noble Lord on that. I have said—and I think we all agree—that this is not the long-term future for our energy needs. But we have a shortage of supply, and this SI helps to fill that over the short term. In the meantime, we want to invest more in wind—offshore and onshore—tidal and all the other renewable energy sources. We need and want to do that, and this Government are committed to that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise in a warm glow of unusual universal support from all corners of your Lordships’ House. Adding to the consensus from the Public Accounts Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned—the Climate Change Committee, we have heard that this statutory instrument is a really bad idea and a disastrous outcome. The noble Earl and many others made the point that we already have a huge problem with public trust in politics and the way the Government have gone about this has not helped.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that if he looks at Hansard afterwards, he will see that I was expressing concern not just about the climate emergency and the carbon impacts but about the enormous costs being laid on the public purse.
I thank all noble Lords who have stayed until 10.22 pm now, and I also give special thanks to the staff we are keeping here to do this. I thank the Minister for his response. It has been a full debate, and I will not summarise it at length, but I will just reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that it is not a new thing for me or the Green Party to seek to pull down the false flag of greenness attached to Drax. There is a photo of me from 2016—it is the oldest I can remember, but there may have earlier ones—standing outside the power station with a nice cardboard axe saying, “Axe Drax”, because it gets the message across so well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for a typically forensic speech. “Means testing for corporate benefits” is a phrase I may borrow from him in future.
I agree with a fair amount of what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, certainly in terms of Drax. However, I point out to the noble Lord that the problem here is not net zero but terrible government policy under successive Governments, which has worked out very badly. Of course, we have had many decades of terrible government policy towards fossil fuel companies, which have cost the Exchequer and the country an enormous amount.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, particularly for raising the excellent “Panorama” programme. I was very aware of the time, so I cut quite a bit out of my speech because I was confident that other noble Lords would pick that up in the debate.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for stressing the need for a long-term strategy. I do not think that the Minister answered that point, which was also raised in the later intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Birt.
I have a couple of points to make in responding to the Minister, and he is very welcome to interrupt me if he would like to provide further information. We have not heard about a long-term strategy; what we have had announced very recently in the spending review was that of the previously announced £8.3 billion, which was going to Great British Energy for renewables, £2.5 billion was taken away to go to nuclear. I shall not relitigate the issue of nuclear power, but I shall make the time point—that nuclear power will not be relevant in 2031, when this SI runs out, so it does not do anything to deal with that long-term strategy that fills in the gaps.
The Minister also said that they would have better scrutiny of Drax’s sustainability. I point to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which expressed concern about the ability of Ofgem and the department to hold Drax to account—so it is not just me saying that. The Minister did not make any reference to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, about carbon capture and storage, so I shall assume from that the Government have entirely given up on carbon capture and storage when it comes to Drax.
There is one last really important point, to respectfully correct the Minister when he spoke about carbon cycle and regrowth. We are now getting horrendously close to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels of heating. As multiple noble Lords said, if the trees regrow—and that is a very large “if” in a changing climate, with huge problems with forest fires and so on—that carbon is captured decades later. That is not helping us to keep below 1.5 degrees, which we have practically lost, or below 2 degrees. Once we get into runaway territory, what happens decades hence will not help us very much at all. The carbon cycle argument simply does not add up; there is a time problem here that has not been resolved.
I come back to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. This is a statutory instrument that deserves the full attention of the House. I am acutely aware of the hour. I kept open the possibility of calling a vote, but I do not think that a vote at 10.27 pm would be any kind of measure of the views of your Lordships’ House—this debate has established those views very clearly on all sides of the House. With reluctance, I shall not call a vote. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.