Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Let me start by acknowledging just how tough it has been for so many farmers this year, having been faced with the very extreme weather conditions. We have had very hot weather, following on from last year, when many suffered from floods. It is undeniable that we are seeing our climate changing. The Government are responding by tackling flooding, investing a record £8 billion in flood defences to protect homes and farms, helping to tackle problems in rural communities such as mine in the fens through our £91 million internal drainage board fund, and investing in nature-friendly farming, which boosts climate resilience, enhances farming profitability and secures food production.
Matt Western
Three of the UK’s five worst harvests have been in the last five years, and this year is looking particularly concerning, with yields likely to be down and margins for farmers on the brink. Just last month, the Bank of England said that extreme weather is now one of the key factors in driving food price inflation. Could the Minister elaborate on what other steps the Government are taking to mitigate food price inflation for consumers?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, consumer food prices depend on a wide range of factors, including agrifood import prices, agricultural prices in general, domestic labour and manufacturing costs, exchange rates, productivity and the extreme weather we have been seeing, which inevitably impacts growth and livestock feed supplies. I reassure the House that the UK has a very resilient food supply chain, and as our food security report shows, it is well equipped to meet these challenges.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I recently visited the Dinsdale family farm to talk to the group of hard-working dairy farmers who provide milk to the Wensleydale Creamery to make their famous Yorkshire cheese. I know the Minister will join me in commending their contribution to British food security and the Dinsdale family for their innovative installation of an anaerobic digestion unit, which turns slurry into energy. Could he look at what more can be done to encourage small-scale on-farm AD units, which not only significantly cut methane emissions but significantly cut costs and increase income for our hard-working family farmers?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I join him in commending the Dinsdale family for the work they do. I have spoken to a number of farmers who would very much like to do that. Of course, there is significant cost involved, and we are working with farmers to try to get the circular economy that we all want to see.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
The depletion of soil health, the risk of disease and climate change threaten our food security for the longer term, and yet we need biotechnologies and sciences to ensure that we have a future in farming. Would the Minister be willing to meet the BioYorkshire project, which brings together Fera Science, the University of York, Askham Bryan College and others, to ensure we have the research and the translation and scaling of that to protect the future of farming?
Daniel Zeichner
I assure my hon. Friend that I have had numerous conversations with leading academics in her great city, and I would be happy to have further conversations along those lines.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
In June, the Scottish Government made a very welcome commitment not to pursue a deliberate policy of reducing livestock numbers. Despite that, livestock numbers in Scotland continue to fall and have fallen by 15% over 10 years, so that across the United Kingdom we now risk losing the critical mass we need to maintain the network of abattoirs, hauliers, vets and merchants. If food security genuinely is national security, is now the moment to consider including within the remit of the Climate Change Committee the maintenance of food security?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We absolutely recognise that food security is national security. He is right about the decline in herd sizes, but of course, there are other aspects here: we have seen higher productivity and changed genetics. It is a complicated picture, but I am happy to have further discussions with him on that.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
The previous Conservative Government quite disgracefully let water bosses awards themselves more than £112 million in bonuses that they did not deserve. This Government are putting a stop to that. We have banned the payment of unfair bonuses and brought in new jail sentences for pollution offences. The Tory era of profiting from pollution is over.
Uma Kumaran
This weekend, for more than 30 hours, waste water from toilets, sinks and drains flooded the River Lea, affecting local communities and spreading to east London, including the wetlands in Stratford and Bow. Thames Water continues to dump sewage and waste water in our rivers at an alarming rate, all while company bosses pay themselves millions in bonuses. May I thank the Secretary of State for the work that this Government are doing to crack down on that appalling practice, and ask what he is doing to ensure that the British public are not paying for that failure after receiving rising water bills? What is he doing to secure the serious investment that is needed for the health of our rivers?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents in east London, on this matter as on many others. With her support, this Government have secured a record £104 billion to upgrade crumbling pipes and build sewage treatment works across the country, so that we can cut sewage pollution. We have also ringfenced customers’ money, so that it can never again be diverted away from investment to pay for bonuses and dividends while sewage pollution got worse. That, of course, includes in the Lea valley.
Sally Jameson
This summer it was reported that the CEO of Yorkshire Water had received an extra payment from a parent company, in spite of recent admissions that it would not be appropriate to receive a bonus due to the company’s poor performance. Yorkshire Water has committed to improving transparency, but that is of little comfort to my constituents who are facing higher bills. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is wrong that those water bosses receive financial reward, when my constituents are facing higher bills and a shocking performance?
Steve Reed
As my hon. Friend rightly says, that payment has outraged customers, and I have asked Ofwat to assess its legality as a matter of urgency. I will not tolerate any company attempting to circumvent this Government’s ban on unfair bonuses through exorbitant salary increases, secret bonuses, payments through parent companies, or any other deception. If Ofwat finds that the rules have been broken, companies will face sanctions, including fines imposed at a level that will deter future abuses.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
State-owned Scottish Water is responsible for the water supply across Scotland. Last week, thousands of residents in the Scottish Borders were left without water for days, and terrible communication by Scottish Water made matters worse. We were facing a public health crisis, as well as an animal welfare crisis. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government should undertake a full investigation into what happened and ensure that Scottish Water executives are held to account for their failure to act?
Steve Reed
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising that important issue, and I agree with the points he makes. The SNP Government in Scotland should be taking a much tougher line against such situations, as it is not acceptable. Levels of pollution in England are bad enough, but under the SNP in Scotland they are even worse, and the SNP Government should be fully ashamed—[Interruption.]
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The public will have been pleased to hear recently about the bonus ban for water company bosses, but they would have been equally surprised to hear that a water company boss in England was awarded a massive pay increase to £1.4 million, with the public being told that that was not a bonus but a two-year long incentive plan. What further steps can the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that water companies are playing fair, when those are the tactics that they use to circumvent the rules?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which has been raised in the House before. That scheme was put in place and relates to years when the Conservative party was in government. That scheme would not be allowed today.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Customers were hit with outrageous bill increases last year as a direct result of the previous Government’s failure to ensure that water and sewage pipes were properly maintained over the long term. They deliberately imposed a light-touch approach to regulation that let the system crumble, while investment funding was diverted to line water bosses’ pockets, leaving customers to pay the price. Our powerful new regulator will get a grip on the sector and ensure the regular maintenance of pipes, so that hard-working British families are never again left to pay the price of under-investment and weak regulation.
Baggy Shanker
In Derby, the proposed water bill increases of about 50% will hit people really hard over the next five years. It is a bitter pill to swallow, because at the same time as hiking bills, shareholder dividends are being increased and water companies continue to pollute our waterways. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that our Government will tackle such hypocrisy head on and, crucially, protect our residents from the water bill increases?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right to advocate so strongly for his constituents in Derby at a time when they are experiencing the cost of living crisis, as others are. I thank him for his support in blocking the unfair, multimillion-pound bonuses that were previously paid to water bosses. By ensuring that customers’ money is spent on upgrading the water system, rather than allowing it to be diverted to bonuses and dividends, he is helping to ensure that the bill hikes that resulted from Tory failure will never happen again.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Unbelievably, the Secretary of State has just doubled down, in the House, on the falsehood that he advanced on 21 July on “Channel 4 News” that pollution levels are worse in Scotland than they are in England. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want to mislead the House. Will he take the opportunity to correct the record—
Mr Speaker
Order. “Falsehood” is not a word we would use. I am sure more constructive wording could be used.
Dave Doogan
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State has inadvertently advanced the same argument that he did on 21 July on “Channel 4 News”. Will he clarify that pollution levels under publicly owned Scottish Water are substantially better than those under privately owned English water companies? Will he recognise that Scottish bill payers pay lower bills and that Scottish Water’s borrowing is sustainable and consistent with the value and quality of Scotland’s water?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman is showing why the problem persists—if the SNP does not recognise the problem, there is no way that it can fix it. I have published the data and I stand by it: pollution under the SNP in Scotland is even worse than it was under the Tories in England. He should be thoroughly ashamed of what he is doing to the beautiful countryside of the country that he represents.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The future of Thames Water is in sharp focus again, affecting millions of people and potentially the wider UK taxpayer. Bizarrely, the third party—along the Benches to my left—led legal action that could have sunk the company. Reform UK is also happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to a cost of billions and pushing consumer water bills through the roof. This Labour Government, in the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, repeatedly blocked our Conservative amendment that would have enabled limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by water companies.
As we reach a precipice with Thames Water, and given the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, will the Government rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer?
Steve Reed
The reason that Thames is in the state that it is in is the weak, so-called “light-touch” regulation that the Conservatives imposed on the water companies when they should have been getting a grip. The point beyond that that the hon. Gentleman makes is a sensible one, however, and our reforms to water regulation and indeed to the regulator are intended to ensure that such problems cannot happen again. In the case of Thames, we are of course keeping a very close eye on what is going on with that company. At the moment, it remains viable, but we are ready for all eventualities, should they occur.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs works with others to protect moorland by restoring peatland, managing grazing and reducing practices that in some cases can be harmful, such as burning. Those steps make peatland wetter to help reduce the impact of wildfires. We are reviewing the existing protection and will announce the next steps shortly.
Alison Hume
A devastating wildfire has been raging on the North York moors, between Scarborough and Whitby, covering about 10 square miles—it is a huge fire. I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in commending the incredible bravery of our firefighters, as well as the tireless service of farmers, water tanker drivers, gamekeepers, landowners and all the other volunteers. Will the Minister provide reassurance that he will look carefully at proposals to limit controlled burning and to change the prohibition of burning on peat over 40 cm deep to peat over 30 cm deep, in the light of this year’s record number of uncontrolled fires, including the one on Langdale moor?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution. I join her in expressing sympathy for all those who have been affected and I thank all those involved in fighting those fires. This is a cross-governmental issue. Wildfire and fire and rescue services are the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we have been consulting on ending locational burning to improve moorland resilience to wildfire. We know that restoring peatlands with diverse plant species prevents the over-dominance of heather and molinia, which dry out peat and increase the risk of fire. Frankly, recent wildfires show just how degraded our peatlands have become.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I join the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) in paying tribute to the firefighters, farmers, gamekeepers and everybody who has taken part in fighting the moorland fires in North Yorkshire, just over the border from my constituency. Does the Minister agree about the huge importance of managing moorland? Managed burning of moorland not only improves the ecological status of the moorland, but reduces the threat of wildfire.
Daniel Zeichner
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is why the consultation has been taking place. These are complicated issues, and sometimes controversial, but we all want to get those moorlands into a state where we are not subject to these dreadful fires.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The thanks of Conservative Members go out to all the emergency services, our mighty farmers and gamekeepers who have been consistently fighting the horrendous blaze on the North York moors. The Secretary of State is currently pushing a dangerous proposal to ban a vital conservation and land management measure through eliminating the use of controlled burning of heather on moorlands, which manages fuel load and helps to prevent out-of-control fires. Does the Minister now recognise that if the Government’s burning ban and deep peat changes go ahead, they will be responsible for more uncontrollable and far more damaging wildfires that negatively impact wildlife, our precious peatland and rural businesses?
Daniel Zeichner
No, I do not agree with the shadow Minister. I have chosen my words carefully: this is a complicated set of issues, we are consulting and we will be coming back with our proposals shortly.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
My hon. Friend showed me the scale of pollution on the Dorset coast and I share his determination to put a stop to it. This Government are fixing the broken sewage pipes that are responsible for this pollution, funded by £104 billion of private investment that we have helped to secure. Over the next five years, that will fund Wessex Water, in his area, to cut storm overflow spills by 43%—a major milestone towards cleaning up for good beautiful places in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting with him, such as Bournemouth beach and Hengistbury.
Tom Hayes
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his two visits to Bournemouth. People still talk happily about his visit to the Hengistbury Head Outdoors centre. I met recently with constituents in Bournemouth East who are calling for nationalisation as a way to improve accountability and investment in the water industry. How does the Secretary of State see a path towards nationalisation sitting within his wider efforts to protect our waters?
Steve Reed
Nationalisation is not the answer, because it would require handing over more than £100 billion to water company owners that could only be raised through higher taxation or cuts to vital public services. It would also take years of legal wrangling that would see the brakes slammed on investment, causing pollution to get worse and, ultimately, lead to higher bills for customers. This Government are taking the fastest possible route towards cleaner water and fairer bills.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
We in North Dorset would love to be talking about ministerial visits from the DEFRA team, but, despite an invitation to the Farming Minister, none have crossed the border to visit.
North Dorset farmers and landowners wish to play their active and fullest part to ensure that, through nitrate neutrality and other farming mechanisms, they are improving water quality to help the rivers that flow to the coast of Bournemouth, Christchurch, Poole and so on. Will the Secretary of State ensure that bodies such as the Environment Agency and others that advise our farmers provide consistent advice in a timely fashion in order to maximise their enthusiasm?
Steve Reed
I have enjoyed visiting Milton Abbas on many very happy occasions. I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are working with farmers and landowners to ensure that they are getting the support they need to take the kind of action that he talks about. The new regional tier proposed by Sir Jon Cunliffe will give a place where farming and land managers can raise their voices and ensure that the outcomes they can contribute to are delivered.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
We have introduced a new era of accountability. We are resetting, reforming and revolutionising the water sector, putting public health and the environment first and delivering the change rightly demanded by the British people. With the most ambitious targets on sewage water pollution in history, we will halve sewage water pollution by 2030.
Patrick Hurley
Over the summer, we saw the announcement of a £50 million investment into Southport’s waste water treatment works to reduce the number of sewage overflows to just three per bathing season, allowing Southport to once again become the jewel in the crown of the north-west coast. Does the Minister agree that that level of investment is very much needed after more than a decade of Tory neglect of our waterways, and that it shows the difference a town can see when it has a Labour MP, a Labour council, a Labour metro mayor and a Labour Government here in Westminster?
Emma Hardy
Unsurprisingly, I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for his work to champion his community here in Parliament. The previous Government oversaw record levels of sewage pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas, but this Government have secured £104 billion of private investment to upgrade crumbling pipes and halve sewage pollution by 2030, so that communities can once again take pride in their rivers, lakes and seas.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
As I have reminded Ministers on a number of occasions, tackling pollution in our rivers and seas requires us to address agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. I am disappointed not to hear the Minister mention that, but I like to come with solutions. I recently visited the Wyescapes landscape recovery project in my constituency, which is an innovative farmer-led project of 49 farmers protecting soil, reducing pollution, restoring nature and producing great-quality food. Will the Minister, or perhaps her colleague the Farming Minister, come to visit this innovative project to see how we can tackle river pollution and protect nature and food production?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. Agricultural pollution is incredibly serious, and this Government recognise that. We have updated the DEFRA statutory guidance for the farming rules for water, and I recently hosted a roundtable with farmers, environmental organisations and the water industry to bring the voices of stakeholders to the fore. We have committed to including a new regional element in the new regulator to ensure greater involvement in water planning. By moving to a catchment-based model for water systems planning, we can tackle all sources of pollution entering the waterways, including agricultural pollution.
I have a very keen interest in the River Wye; I went to see it last year, and it is absolutely beautiful. The hon. Lady will be well aware of the research project with £1 million of funding that we announced to look into all sources of pollution and what we can do to clean up this beautiful place in our country.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the rolling reporting of dry-day spills has become mandatory under our Government, but it has unfortunately laid bare the track record of South West Water, which is among the worst offenders on dry-day spills. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that companies such as South West Water feel the full force of the law with regard to dry-day spills?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be angry about the state in which our rivers, lakes and seas have been left, and I recognise the trouble that a failing water company causes for his constituency. That is why we have committed to resetting, reforming and revolutionising the water sector and why we are establishing a new, single and powerful regulator that can fully hold all companies to account and ensure that they are delivering for the British people and cleaning up our waterways for good.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Run-off from chicken manure is a particular problem in the bathing waters and rivers in Shropshire. I have visited both Harper Adams University and LOHAS Fertiliser in my constituency, which have great new technologies to deal with chicken manure, stabilise it and moving that great fertiliser to other parts of the country where it causes fewer problems. However, they cannot scale up, so what steps is the Minister taking to enable the new technologies that could deal with some of these problems to be scaled up and used across the country?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises a really interesting point—it is perhaps worrying how interested I am getting in what we can do with manure and human waste to provide organic fertiliser in our country. She has given a brilliant example of what can be done, and I will make sure that the Minister who is responsible for the circular economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), gets to hear about it and learn more.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Funding for the environmental land management schemes paid to farmers will increase by 150%, from £800 million in 2023-24 to £2 billion by 2028-29. Sadly, though, we inherited a set of schemes that did not necessarily distribute funds fairly. We are working with farmers to reshape the SFI, and further information about our reforms will be provided shortly.
Alistair Strathern
Like the National Farmers Union, I welcome the protections for the agriculture budget in the recent spending review, including crucial funding for sustainable farming. On visits to farmers in my constituency, the difference this is making is clear: it is investing in our countryside and supporting nature-based farming. However, far too many farmers on small and medium-sized farms tell me that the scheme is far too difficult for them to access at the moment. Those are exactly the farmers who are also likely to be locked out of private nature-based financing options, so how can we work with those farmers to reform the scheme and ensure that more of those small and medium-sized farms can benefit from this crucial funding?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I commend him on his interest and his insight. He is absolutely right, and we are learning from past SFI iterations and from what we are hearing from farmers to improve the SFI for all farmers and to ensure we can give better guidance and that everyone can have a share of the pie. We are also looking into a new local advice and collaboration offer, as well as considering how we can get the best environmental outcomes from the money we are spending.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
After the elephant in the room that is the farm-destroying family farm tax, the No. 1 issue that is raised with me by Mid Buckinghamshire farmers—not least at the Bucks county show last week—is the uncertainty over the future of the SFI. I do not think it is going to cut it with farmers to say that further details will be provided in due course. They need certainty and they need it now, so will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and put a firm date on when farms will have that certainty, as well as assuring them that the new SFI will have food production at its heart?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we will be making announcements on this very shortly. [Interruption.] We are picking up a disastrous mess inherited from the previous Government—this is absolutely true—who were quite cavalier about the way in which these schemes were run. We are having to clear up that mess, but I absolutely sympathise with farmers, who should not have been put in that position in the first place.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Given the Secretary of State’s love of Dorset, I would love to invite him to Mid Dorset, where Goodens farm is doing some really innovative things on very small family farms, especially with manure. Mr Randall, who runs that farm, joined the sustainable farming incentive last year, which enabled him to start growing a new crop—herbal leys. Because climate change is making farming so tough, he is trying everything he can to keep his business going. The SFI allowed him to take that risk, but it is no longer available to him. As he put it, we need farm security if we want food security, so what steps is the Minister taking to look after farmers on our very smallest farms, who are critical to food production?
Daniel Zeichner
There was a lot in that question. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that herbal leys have been very effective, and many people have seen the impact they have had during the dry weather. It is also interesting that these schemes are now available to much smaller enterprises than they ever were under the previous schemes. There is much that can be done, and we are redesigning the schemes to make them work towards achieving exactly the outcomes that the hon. Lady is seeking.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
As we have heard, this summer has seen wildfires burning across our countryside. I add my thanks to the emergency services, who were out in force to battle those fires, but so too were farmers, gamekeepers and local volunteers who gave up their time and resources to control the fires and help put them out. I pay tribute to all of them for their selfless bravery and community spirit.
The fires came at the end of a long period of drought. Visiting farms this week and earlier in the summer, I saw for myself how food production has been affected. It is clear that further work is required to support farmers to build on-farm reservoirs and irrigation systems that can sustain their businesses through dry periods, and I have invited the NFU to work with me on that. I want to use this opportunity, though, to thank farmers for the outstanding work that they do to feed our country through thick and thin.
Andy MacNae
As we move into autumn, flooding is once again on the minds of residents in Rossendale and Darwen. This Government have already made vital commitments to our flood defences, but recently some communities have expressed concern that flood modelling is out of date and is either not fully identifying risk areas or identifying risk areas as high-risk that no longer are. The Environment Agency is aware of that, so will the Secretary of State join me in urging it urgently to prioritise new modelling?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important and timely point. Through the floods resilience taskforce, we are looking at how we can update the modelling to make sure that all areas that need protection will get the investment to do it, because far too many communities are exposed to the dangers of flooding. That is why we are investing £4.2 billion between 2026 and 2029 to protect our communities and better maintain our flood defences in England.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I join the Secretary of State and everyone across the Chamber in thanking the fire services, farmers and rural communities for their hard work and bravery in tackling the wildfires that we have seen this summer?
I am heartened to discover the Secretary of State’s new fondness for farmers. We will all be listening carefully to his answer to the next question. With 89% of farmers saying that they have paused or delayed investment because of the Budget, and with food prices rising, record farm closures under his watch, and Labour’s own think-tank admitting that the family farm tax needs changing, will he finally do the right thing, put rural communities above his own ambitions and axe the family farm tax?
Steve Reed
First, may I welcome the shadow Secretary of State back to the Chamber? It was disappointing that she did not bother to turn up for the water statement; I can only assume that she does not care much about the pollution that her party is responsible for across the country.
When it comes to farming, we are working with the farming sector on a road map to bring it back to profitability. That is the route to ensure that those businesses remain financially viable and successful into the future. It was her Government who left so many farmers on the brink of bankruptcy, so it takes only small problems to push them over the edge. Some 12,000 farms closed under the previous Government. We are working with the sector to make it profitable for the future.
Victoria Atkins
I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but I suspect I have spoken to far more farmers than he has in the past 12 months. They do not believe a word he says, because he betrayed what he said to them before the election about the family farm tax. As for this road map, if farms continue to close—more than half of farmers are thinking of giving up in the next five years because of this Government’s plan—it will be a road map to nowhere. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee that the rise in food prices was due in part to measures in the last Budget placing higher costs on food businesses. In light of that and the terrible summer harvest, will the Secretary of State do farmers a favour for once and rule out a new wealth tax on farmland in the next Budget—yes or no?
Steve Reed
The causes of food price inflation include rising global energy prices, extreme weather events that have been affecting harvests, as we have already heard, and global supply chain problems, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those things are affecting food prices right across the country. As part of the road map, we are working with farmers to ensure more supply chain fairness, so that the producer of origin gets a fairer share of the money that is made through the system for the food that they grow. That is the best way in which we can support farms to get their fair share of the revenue that comes in for the food they produce.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we should all be proud of high-quality British producers like Longley farm. That is why, back in July, I announced our food strategy, which will build pride in British food by ensuring we have a food system that backs British food, grows the economy, feeds the nation, nourishes individuals and protects the planet—now and in the future.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question, and I share her concern about the risks that microplastics may pose to the environment and human health. That is why we are looking at all sources of pollution that enter our rivers, lakes and seas, but there is obviously more work to be done to improve our understanding. The Environment Agency is collaborating with different sectors, including the water industry and National Highways, to increase our evidence base and knowledge of these materials.
May I also express my disappointment about the global plastics treaty? We were unable to reach an international agreement, but I reassure all Members of the House that the Government remain committed to seeking a global solution to the problem of plastic pollution that we all face.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Emma Hardy
I commend my hon. Friend for his successful championing of this issue on behalf of his constituents. I know how much it means to his community to have such boats removed. It is an important issue, and I am more than happy to follow up with the Canal & River Trust in order to understand if it needs any additional tools to continue and complete this work around the country.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and I visited an abattoir last week. Because of the changes to the system over a number of years, we have seen a concentration of these facilities. We all want to see more small abattoirs. The previous Government introduced a fund, but it proved difficult to get uptake. There is a whole range of serious issues. We are very aware of the problem, and we want to work with him and others to solve it.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Steve Reed
Well, I was not far away a couple of weeks ago—I was down in Lewes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a powerful campaigner on issues relating to sewage in his constituency. He tells me that he has brought together a group of campaigners. I would be delighted to meet him and them to see some of the problems and talk about how we can start to fix the appalling problems with pollution that the Conservative party has landed us with.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Steve Reed
I am always happy to meet farmers. That is why I have visited two farms already this week and sat down with a group of six farmers to talk about their concerns. I am more than happy to make sure that the people the hon. Gentleman has visiting get an appropriate meeting to discuss their concerns.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
Anyone involved in the vile trade of people smuggling will be met with the full force of the law. This year, 67% more offences for facilitating illegal entry into the UK were prosecuted. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will allow for more prosecutions, including by criminalising the creation of online material that facilitates a breach of UK immigration law.
Warinder Juss
I welcome the Government’s steps to deter people smuggling and end the exploitation of vulnerable people. I also want to highlight the work that Wolverhampton City of Sanctuary does in my constituency to help refugees rebuild their lives. As the Home Secretary confirmed only this week, one of the Government’s major reforms is developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees. Does the Solicitor General agree that having safe and legal routes for asylum seekers is a crucial step in undermining the business model of the people smuggling gangs?
The Solicitor General
Developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees is important. This is one of a host of robust, concrete and practical measures that the Government are taking to crack down on the vile activities of people smuggling gangs. I contrast our approach with that of the Conservative party, which left us with this borders crisis, and with that of Reform, which is happy to stoke anger but has absolutely no answers.
Alan Strickland
To stop the small boats, it is crucial that the Labour Government provide global leadership to smash the criminal gangs. Can the Solicitor General set out the work that we are doing with other countries to secure our borders and end this appalling trade in human life?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend rightly highlights this Government’s global leadership on these issues, which is part of our plan to fix the borders crisis left to us by the last Government. We have agreed a landmark deal with France, and we have increased co-operation with Germany and other countries. We have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, and increased the removal of failed asylum seekers by 30%. We are giving Border Security Command counter-terrorist-style powers through our borders Bill, which is a Bill that both Reform and the Conservative party voted against.
Alex Ballinger
My constituents in Halesowen continue to be concerned about the number of people crossing to the UK on small boats. They are calling for swift and tough action against the people smugglers responsible for these dangerous crossings, which are putting the lives of women and children at risk. Can the Solicitor General outline how she is supporting this action?
The Solicitor General
I have heard from Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors about the deplorable actions that the smugglers take in not only facilitating very young children being aboard the boats, but even sedating them to ensure they are compliant during the crossing. My hon. Friend is right that the dangers faced by people, particularly children, when they cross the channel are extremely grave. This Government are absolutely determined to break the business model of the people smugglers, so protecting our borders and stopping lives, including young lives, being put in such danger.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Will the Solicitor General commit to working across Cabinet to publish the number of people smuggling cases that have collapsed before trial over the past five years, and the reasons why they have collapsed?
The Solicitor General
I think this is important to look at, and I want to highlight that the CPS is taking considerable action to prosecute these offences. We have given the CPS extra funding to increase its capacity to work on Border Security Command cases, and the money will allow the CPS to recruit additional staff in the areas at the frontline of combating organised immigration crime.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Solicitor General for what she is personally trying to do, and indeed the rest of the Government. If we are to prosecute people smugglers effectively, we need global action. May I focus her attention on the Republic of Ireland? We have a porous border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the people smuggling gangs are using that without any inhibitions whatsoever. What has been done with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that that does not happen?
The Solicitor General
I am more than happy to look at that, but the point the hon. Member makes about international co-operation is extremely important. That is why I highlighted our groundbreaking deal with France—it is a deal that the Conservatives were unable to do—which will be absolutely key to stopping people crossing the channel.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I completely disagree with what the Solicitor General has said about the previous Government’s record in this area, and it is a bit rich in view of her Government’s record over the past 12 months. Reports reveal that Ministers will soon replace immigration judges with professionally trained adjudicators. We are told that is to tackle the 51,000 case appeal backlog, which will of course involve cases of people smugglers. Can she please confirm how long it will take to put that in place and whether it will require primary legislation?
The Solicitor General
The Conservatives left us with a borders crisis, and we are fixing it. The shadow Solicitor General said that we are setting up a new independent body to clear appeals more quickly, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have doubled the number of asylum decisions already: we are sorting out their mess.
Helen Grant
Figures are going up and up and up, and the Solicitor General knows that. Can she confirm who these adjudicators will be—it would be lovely if she would answer the question—and will existing first-tier tribunal judges of the immigration and asylum chamber be eligible to apply?
The Solicitor General
As I said, we are setting up a new independent body to clear appeals more quickly. We are clearing up the Conservatives’ mess, and the Home Secretary will bring forward plans in the areas that the hon. Lady mentions.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Solicitor General
The grooming and sexual exploitation of young girls in this country is nothing short of sickening, and the Government are doing everything in our power to secure justice for the victims and protect children from further harm. The Crown Prosecution Service has significantly increased prosecutions for child sex offences and recently secured convictions against three offenders for truly hideous crimes going back to 1999.
Mr Snowden
From my time as Lancashire’s police commissioner, I have seen the fruits when the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts worked together to prioritise the listing of cases involving rape and serious sexual assault, as we know that victims and witnesses are less likely to continue with a prosecution the longer it continues. Can the Solicitor General update us on the work being done to ensure that those agencies work together to support the victims and prioritise those case listings?
The Solicitor General
As the hon. Gentleman will know, listing is a matter for the independent judiciary. However, I can tell him that certain areas have pilot schemes of weekly listing meetings across criminal justice partners to ensure—as he says—that we lessen victim attrition, which is unfortunately far too high as a result of the record court backlog.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the backlog of those cases will be examined again, and that historical cases will be looked at, but one of the challenges is that whistleblowers in local authorities were sacked under non-disclosure agreements. What advice is the Crown Prosecution Service providing to ensure that those NDAs are removed so that we can get to the truth of what happened with those terrible crimes against young girls?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman refers to a very important issue, which is why I am pleased to tell him that through our flagship Crime and Policing Bill we are working to implement the key recommendations from the Jay review, one of which is including long-overdue mandatory reporting duties for those working with children. It also includes making grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing and crucial changes to address safeguarding loopholes.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
The Conservatives failed to implement a single recommendation from the report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, despite holding more than 20 meetings, events and roundtables on the issue. Alexis Jay herself spoke of the huge disappointment and anger at their response. What work are the Government doing to implement these recommendations and those from the Casey review?
The Solicitor General
As we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in the House this week, the Home Office is making important progress in implementing those recommendations. Thousands of cases have been identified for formal review, and priority cases—those involving an allegation of rape—are being reviewed urgently. Increasing funding for the tackling exploitation programme will allow all police forces to access cutting-edge technology to combat these horrific crimes.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Alongside the failure to go after some of the evil perpetrators of these crimes without fear or favour, another devastating failing of the grooming gangs scandal was the criminalisation of some of the young people involved by a system that all too often failed to see them as children and victims first. How is the Solicitor General working with colleagues right across Government to ensure that we can disregard those convictions as quickly as possible, and so that such key failings cannot happen again?
The Solicitor General
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the CPS is working actively alongside the Government to ensure that the criminal convictions for victims of child sexual exploitation, with the offence in that case being prostitution, are being disregarded, which is extremely important.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Better use of technology is key to reforming all our public services, including the criminal justice system, from the police and the CPS to our courts, prisons and probation services. This Government are absolutely determined to harness all the power and potential of new technology to the benefit of the public, those who work in our public services and, of course, the public purse.
Sarah Russell
I thank the Solicitor General for that answer. The courts system and all the associated IT have been left in the most catastrophic state by the previous Conservative Government. It is shocking that £2 billion was spent on a civil courts IT system that cannot even handle litigation where there is more than one claimant or defendant, which is basic and normal. The particular issue that worries me today, though, is the Legal Aid Agency and the state of its IT system; as she will know, it was the subject of a cyber-attack in the spring. Could she update us on that situation and on any potential plans to build back better?
The Solicitor General
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend accurately describes the years of neglect of the justice system under the previous Government. She asks specifically about the Legal Aid Agency. The Government took immediate action to bolster the security of the agency’s systems and an injunction was put in place to prohibit the sharing of any breached data. We have put in place contingency plans to ensure that those most in need of legal support can continue to access the help that they need, and we are working at pace to restore services quickly and safely.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
This Government are committed to restoring confidence in the criminal justice system, which means ensuring that victims of crime are properly supported through the justice process. The CPS is taking a range of measures to better support victims, including by offering pre-trial meetings to adult victims of rape and serious sexual assault, recruiting victim liaison officers to act as a consistent point of contact for victims, and delivering the groundbreaking victim transformation programme.
Mr Alaba
Earlier this year, I visited Southend-on-Sea Rape Crisis centre, where we discussed how extended court delays put pressure on the third sector organisations that provide this vital support. Under the previous Government, the total backlog of all court cases soared, with 73,000 victims left waiting years for their day in court. Now, we finally have a Government who are putting victims first. Our Labour Government have allocated the highest number of sitting days on record. How is the CPS playing its role in getting quicker justice for victims?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend rightly highlights the necessary and important action that this Government are taking to address the crisis in our courts. Alongside that, the CPS is using every tool at its disposal to reduce the backlog, including by trialling new initiatives to expedite domestic abuse trials and weekly listing meetings with partners in the criminal justice system.
Pam Cox
I recently visited a Colchester organisation, the Centre for Action on Rape and Abuse, or CARA, which offers vital support to victims of rape and sexual abuse. Will the Solicitor General reaffirm the Government’s commitment to supporting such organisations, which carry out so much of that vital frontline work, and will she reiterate what she is doing to enhance the number of rape trials that actually proceed?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important role that organisations such as CARA play in supporting victims of rape and serious sexual violence. Supporting victims throughout the criminal justice process is a priority for this Government, and we are taking a range of measures to do just that, including implementing Raneem’s law to embed dedicated domestic abuse teams within 999 control rooms and introducing free independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As the Solicitor General knows, I have been campaigning to support victims of spiking. I thank her for meeting me before the recess, but unfortunately the correspondence from her office subsequent to that meeting seems to entirely miss the point and does not follow at all the conversation we had. Given that it quotes heavily the CPS, will she agree to meet again with me, and with representatives from the CPS, to understand the loophole in the law that I have identified? It would be a tragedy for the victims of spiking if this were not dealt with because of something as frustrating as a misunderstanding by people who were not in the room at the time.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member has done important work in this area. We met previously to discuss the potential for reckless spiking, and I entirely understand why he is concerned about that. The correspondence that we sent reflected that we had had discussions with the CPS who felt that the circumstances that he was concerned about were very unlikely to arise. However, I am more than happy to meet him again if he believes that there are issues that need to be further clarified.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Close followers of Parliament will know that I have raised on more than one occasion a case of stalking in my constituency. Despite being reported, arrested and charged continually by the police, he keeps getting released on bail. The police are frustrated, and my resident is being let down. What assurance can I provide her and others in the same position that the CPS takes seriously repeat offenders and that their repeat offending is taken into account when they finally come to court?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises a very important point, and I acknowledge how damaging stalking can be to people’s lives, particularly when it comes to repeat offenders. We have set out new measures to tackle stalking, including statutory guidance to empower the police to release the identities of online stalkers and a review of the stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
Fraud is the most common type of crime in the UK. It hurts individuals and businesses and undermines everyone who plays by the rules—and it undermines economic confidence too. That is why the Government have underlined their commitment to tackling economic crime by providing the SFO with an £8 million boost as part of the spending review. That will bolster the SFO’s intelligence capabilities so that it can proactively identify and prosecute the biggest and most complex economic crimes.
Mr Frith
A businessman in my constituency has been defrauded of £100,000. Local police lack the skills and resources to investigate, and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau says that it cannot identify a line of inquiry, even though my constituent has compiled evidence himself. To his great credit, my constituent is more concerned about how many more victims there will be while such crimes go uninvestigated and unpunished. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss how we can ensure that this crime is properly investigated and these wretched fraudsters are brought to justice?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear about the position that my hon. Friend’s constituent has been put in. I am sorry to say that it encapsulates perfectly why fraud is so damaging. The Government are doing everything in our power to crack down on fraud and corruption and support victims of these crimes. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to see what more might be done in this case.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The newly built Launceston primary school in my constituency was demolished and then rebuilt, costing millions of pounds because of serious defects in the building. The contractor at fault went into administration. Unfortunately, this is far from a stand-alone case; it is happening across the country. Individual developers are putting their companies into liquidation and then setting up a new one, evading their obligations to finish vital infrastructure such as roads and sewage works. Such cases often leave Government Departments, homeowners and the British taxpayer out of pocket. What steps is the Serious Fraud Office taking to tackle these all-too-common cases, and will the Solicitor General please consider new legislation to prevent such developers from getting away with such serious fraud?
The Solicitor General
I am sorry to hear about the position that the hon. Member’s constituents have been put in. It is a terrible example, which I am sure needs to be looked at much more closely. As he knows, the Serious Fraud Office is operationally independent. As a highly specialist agency, it takes on a number of complex economic crime cases each year. The case he raises may be one for it; it may also be one for Action Fraud. I am more than happy to examine it further and to raise it with the appropriate agency.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Solicitor General
The Government inherited a record court backlog in the Crown court. On taking office, we took immediate action, including by funding a record high number of sitting days. The CPS is playing its part to help tackle these issues. That includes setting up a surge team, which has completed more than 12,000 pre-charge decisions, contributing significantly to reducing the backlog.
Mr Forster
The Solicitor General confirms the horrendous backlog in the Crown court to us all. In one case in my constituency, one victim, Dani, will have to wait more than six years to get justice. Dani is just 21 and has been a victim of grooming and sexual abuse. Does the Solicitor General agree that for Dani and many others, justice delayed is justice denied? What further urgent steps will the Government take to tackle the backlog?
The Solicitor General
I am extremely sorry to hear about Dani’s case. The previous Government closed over 260 court buildings, and the human cost of the delays as a result of the backlog is really considerable. Victims are waiting years for justice, and attrition in rape cases in particular has more than doubled in the last five years. As I said, on taking office we took immediate action, and not only in relation to sitting days. We have also committed to investing up to £92 million more a year in criminal legal aid, and we are taking action to ensure that there are more specialist counsel available, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Last year, 446 Crown court trials were ineffective because the prosecutor failed to attend. Given that the Government are getting to grips with the backlog they inherited by increasing sitting days and through Brian Leveson’s proposals, is the Solicitor General concerned that the CPS also needs to step up to the plate? What is she doing to ensure that that happens?
The Solicitor General
The CPS is indeed stepping up to the plate to play its role in reducing the backlog. In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, the CPS is exploring options for expanding the role of non-legal resources to support the system. It has also set up the surge team that I referred to. I can also confirm that the CPS is working with the judiciary, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and other criminal justice system stakeholders on a range of local initiatives, including a trial blitz, case resolution courts and weekly listing meetings.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
I know how much work my hon. Friend has been doing to support justice for Hillsborough families and indeed to push for a Hillsborough law. As she knows, I am unable by convention to disclose whether the Law Officers are advising the Government—nor, of course, the content of any advice—but I know that colleagues are working to bring forward a Hillsborough law as soon as possible.
Anneliese Midgley
The families have been campaigning for a Hillsborough law for 36 years, and their demand has always been clear: a law with a duty of candour at its heart. There have been too many broken promises and missed deadlines. Can the Solicitor General tell me when the Government will bring forward the Hillsborough law? Will it honour the promises made to victims of state cover-ups and finally deliver justice for the 97?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has been a resolute and steadfast champion for the Hillsborough families, and indeed for the justice she referred to. As she knows, the Government, including the Prime Minister, have been working closely with the families, and I can confirm that the draft Bill will include a statutory duty of candour for public servants, with criminal sanctions for those who do not comply, and measures to decisively tackle the disparity between the state and bereaved families at inquests. As to timing, I know that everyone is working extremely hard to get the legislation right. The Government hope to be in a position to introduce a Bill to Parliament very soon.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member will appreciate that as a Law Officer I cannot talk about the specifics of legal advice to Government. However, he will be aware of paragraph 1.6 of the ministerial code that acknowledges the overarching duty on all Ministers to comply with the law. That obligation is inherent in all the advice that the Law Officers give to Government.
Edward Morello
By the end of September, more than 640,000 Gazans are projected to face catastrophic food insecurity, while the integrated food security phase classification predicts that a further 43,000 Palestinian children will be at severe risk of death from malnutrition by next year. The Government will have received legal advice regarding the famine in Gaza and Israel’s role in it. Will the Solicitor General commit to publishing any advice that the Government have received on whether breaches of international law have occurred in the conflict in Gaza?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot comment on any legal advice that may or may not have been given or, indeed, whether it has been sought. What I can confirm to him is twofold. First, the Government take their legal obligations extremely seriously. Secondly, the Government are very clear in our position that the horrors taking place in Gaza need to be brought to an end.
Business of the House
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 8 September will include:
Monday 8 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Tuesday 9 September—Second Reading of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.
Wednesday 10 September—Remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 11 September—General debate on regional transport inequality, followed by general debate on suicide prevention. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 September—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 September includes:
Monday 15 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Tuesday 16 September—Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill.
The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 16 September and return on Monday 13 October.
Hon. Members will also wish to note the written statement made this week confirming that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will deliver her Budget statement on Wednesday 26 November.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you and everyone in this Chamber had a very good summer break, with just the right proportions of sun, sleep and family.
If I may, let me start with a double round of congratulations: first, to the Prime Minister on his 63rd birthday this week, putting him squarely in the prime of life; and secondly, to my brilliant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who has just been appointed to the giddy heights of shadow Deputy Leader of the House. That is the reshuffle that really matters. As befits a former lawyer at Freshfields, he will bring his forensic intellect to scrutinising the Government.
I had been planning to talk about the Government’s performance over the summer, taking into account the escalating union demands for pay, the rise in inflation, unemployment and gilt yields, and the record number of small boat crossings in the first half of the year. I think it is fair to say that the past few weeks have been a total shambles for the Government. Little wonder that the Prime Minister has undertaken yet another of his performative Government resets to distract the media and the general public. He insists that everything is absolutely fine, which is doubtless why it is all being changed round yet again. They cannot blame these things on the previous Government, though doubtless the Leader of the House will try.
There can, however, be only one topic today, and that is tax. In the real world, it seems that those of us poor souls who actually do pay tax are about to be confronted with a massive tax-raising Budget, perhaps with a particular focus, it has been rumoured in the media—or kites have been flown—on property taxes. Last year, the Chancellor increased spending by £70 billion, funding half of that through taxes and half through increased borrowing.
Of course, it seems that the only person who will not be paying more tax is the Deputy Prime Minister. I like and rather admire the Deputy Prime Minister—uniquely among the Government, she at least has a policy of trying to reduce taxes. We just heard the Solicitor General talk about Government taking a strict line on fraud; I did not hear so much about taking a strict line on tax fraud—[Interruption.] Or potential tax fraud, but we now have a situation in which the Deputy Prime has tried to dodge paying £40,000 in tax on her third home after demanding that previous Ministers should resign over tax scandals. It appears that she failed even to look at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs guidance on the internet as to whether higher rate stamp duty was payable. That guidance is readily available and is straightforward. It is hard to imagine that any qualified tax adviser—let alone any individual seeking to question their own tax arrangements—would not have taken a look or know about it.
The Deputy Prime Minister signed a deed for what appears to be an off-the-shelf trust scheme from Shoosmiths, the solicitors. Was that crafted to avoid tax? We need to know more about what disclosures she made to the civil service about her three homes, what review was carried out and what advice she was offered. I hope the Prime Minister’s adviser will look at those issues, in addition to all the other issues he is looking at.
Does the Leader of the House believe that Cabinet Ministers—let alone the Deputy Prime Minister of this country—should be using schemes to dodge tax? Should the Secretary of State responsible for housing be flipping her own main residence to avoid paying tax due on it? Does she concede that there is the appearance of very serious impropriety about these proceedings? Does she see how difficult they have made the situation for her colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is planning to put a Budget in front of this House that will include tax-raising measures, many of which will likely be focused on property? Above all, Labour—and every Labour Member stood by this—made a solemn commitment to maintain the “highest standards” in office in its own general election manifesto. Does the Leader of the House accept that this conduct by the Deputy Prime Minister massively falls short of that, and that it discredits both the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole?
Lucy Powell
Welcome back to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the House staff. I join the shadow Leader of the House in wishing the Prime Minister a happy birthday for earlier this week.
This summer has been marked by some happy personal events here in the House—no, I am not talking about Taylor Swift’s engagement to Travis Kelce, although I am sure we will all want to wish them a happy engagement. We have our very own power couples: my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who got married to each other over the summer recess. There are also my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), who married her long-term partner Ian, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who married Kristiam this recess.
The happy news does not stop there. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) had her beautiful baby daughter. I am thrilled for her and also for my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) on the arrival of her new baby, too. There are new dads in the House as well: my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and for York Outer (Mr Charters), so that is dispatches for this week. We are very much more a family-friendly Parliament these days, and I am determined that modernisation will continue that trend.
I join the shadow Leader of the House in welcoming the new shadow deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), to his place. I hope that he will still on occasion ask me some questions and invite me to his constituency from the Back Benches, which I am always happy to accept as he knows.
I am also pleased to announce that this first bumper Session of Parliament under the Labour Government will last until spring 2026. By any measure, our legislative programme in this first Session is highly ambitious, delivering on the promises that we made in our manifesto and shifting power and opportunity to working people. There are a few highlights, which I know that shadow Leader of the House is always happy to hear about. We are giving the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation, finally ending no-fault evictions, stopping water bosses’ bonuses, setting up Great British Energy to get bills down, bringing back rail into public ownership, saving British Steel jobs, seizing and crushing dangerous off-road vehicles, finally recriminalising shoplifting, ensuring that buses are affordable and serve their communities, and protecting our much-loved football clubs. We are taking on the vested interests that hold this country back, and we still have much more to do in the rest of this Session.
In contrast, the Conservatives really have shown on whose side they stand in this Session: on the side of landlords against the Renters’ Rights Bill; on the side of criminal gangs in voting against our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill; for the few, not the many, in education; and, as ever, dying in a ditch to save the hereditary peers in the other place. We know whose side they are on.
The shadow Leader of the House chose to have another go on the issue of tax and property, which was, I noticed, the subject of one of the Conservatives’ Opposition Day debates yesterday. They could not muster enough speakers for that debate to go the full three hours, so he is having another go today. I repeat that the Deputy Prime Minister has given a full account of her family circumstances and living arrangements. She made it clear that she is now rectifying her mistake. She has referred herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, who is now looking into it. I will not say any more on that matter because he is looking into it.
Suffice it to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is a huge, huge asset to this Government. She is an incredibly effective Minister and she has been delivering, whether on our record investment in social housing, the flagship Employment Rights Bill, the biggest settlement for local government in many years, major planning reforms to get more homes built, or the delivery of devolution and community empowerment, among much more. The Conservatives have a go at her because she is so bloody good at her job.
Yet again, the shadow Leader of the House comes here and talks about the economy and the Budget, but another year has gone by and we have still had no apology from him or his Front-Bench colleagues for the state they left the country’s finances in. Let us just remind ourselves about that. They left a huge black hole in public spending, high levels of debt and borrowing, and living standards that had, for the first time in history, fallen during a Parliament. He is always very selective in his use of statistics; he did not mention that the British economy has grown faster than all other G7 countries in the first half of this year, or that mortgages are now at a five-year low. After a decade and a half of poor productivity because of a lack of investment, we are now powering up this country and investing in the new jobs of the future around the country, with jobs coming every day. The Chancellor will set out the Budget in the usual way, but she has made clear that most of the speculation is quite honestly damaging rubbish.
Let us not forget that we are now coming up to the three-year anniversary of the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget. I think I remember that the shadow Leader of the House being the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at that Budget. When Governments lose confidence and take irresponsible decisions, the poorest in society pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes. We will take absolutely no lectures from the Conservatives.
The shadow Leader of the House wanted to talk about the performance of the Government over the summer, but he did not. Let us be honest: the Leader of the Opposition does not need a reset but a full-blown resuscitation—her party spent most of the summer checking whether she had a pulse or not. The truth is that her leadership, like the future of the Conservative party, is, quite frankly, at death’s door.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
The SNP-led Glasgow city council is proposing to introduce a car tax on East Renfrewshire motorists, so that every time my constituents enter Glasgow city, they would have to pay a fee. Could she make time for a debate on the enormous levels of waste by the SNP Government on things like Barlinnie Prison, which is 10 times over budget, or the ferries that went nowhere, so that we can tell the SNP to stop wasting our money and get out of the pockets of East Renfrewshire motorists?
Lucy Powell
I know what an issue parking charges can be in city centres, such as my own. My hon. Friend is right: that would make a really good topic for a debate. Let us have a look at the performance of the SNP Government in Scotland. They have had the biggest settlement ever in Scotland. What are they doing with that money, and how are they serving the people of Scotland?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister told the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), that the situation in Gaza was “horrifying” and “a man-made famine”. We agree. More than 60,000 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in the conflict. Just yesterday, five adults and a child were reported to have died of malnutrition, as a direct consequence of the Israeli Government’s man-made famine and illegal restrictions on aid entering the strip. It has been the deadliest war ever for journalists, with at least 192 killed by Israeli forces, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and 20 Israeli hostages are still thought to be alive and brutally held by Hamas terrorists.
Across the House, we have begged the Government to do more to help end the conflict, to save the lives of the hostages and Gaza’s civilians. Indeed, it is something that constituents write to me and undoubtedly all Members about on a daily basis, yet action has been excruciatingly slow. In July, the Prime Minister set a deadline for further action. He said that
“the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace”.
That deadline is fast approaching: the UN General Assembly convenes in less than a week. The House should surely have the right to debate and vote on this important step. Recognising that Parliament will break for conference recess in less than two weeks, will the Leader of the House grant a full debate in Government time before then to show the strength of support for the recognition of the state of Palestine in this House?
Lucy Powell
I welcome the hon. Member back from summer recess and look forward to continuing to work with her on the many Committees on which we both sit. I thank her for raising that very important issue. Let us be under no illusions: the situation in Gaza is unimaginably bleak. It is truly horrific, and the horrifying images and accounts we are seeing daily are seared on all our minds as we go about our business. On top of everything else, after so many civilian deaths and so much destruction, we are now seeing a man-made and wholly avoidable famine and widespread starvation.
The Government are leading international efforts for a peace plan. That involves the release of hostages, a ceasefire and the huge humanitarian response needed to prevent further death and destruction. The recognition of Palestine as a state is an important step towards that, which is why the Prime Minister set out those plans as we approach the UNGA later this month.
I have personally long supported the recognition of Palestine, including last time Parliament was asked to give a view on the matter. On Monday, in a two-hour statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary updated Members on the steps we are taking to recognise the state of Palestine and made clear that unless the Israeli Government take urgent steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to a long-term peace, we will make that assessment before the leaders meet at the UN in New York. We will, as ever, ensure that the House has a full opportunity to continue to discuss and scrutinise these very important decisions.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
In February, my constituent’s son, Paul Holborn, won the men’s section of the 777 world marathon challenge. That is seven marathons in seven continents in seven days. He topped that off by then running the north pole marathon in July, and achieving grand slam status. Paul is now preparing for his next challenge. He plans to climb Mount Kilimanjaro in January, and then to pull a sled for 293 miles across the Arctic frozen tundra in February. Throughout his journey, Paul has raised thousands for local charities, including £4,000 for Age UK in Sunderland. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Paul on his bravery and determination, and in wishing him the best of luck for his upcoming endeavours, where he will do not just the north-east proud, but the whole UK?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Paul on his extraordinary achievements. Quite honestly, I am exhausted just listening to what he is doing, let alone doing it myself.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business for next week. She will know that 50 Back Benchers were frustrated on Monday that they were not able to debate transport inequalities. Obviously there were important statements—we understand that—but will she consider giving that debate protected time next week, so that all those who wish to contribute can do so, rather than being confined to about 30 seconds each if the debate is squeezed in next week?
In addition to business in the Chamber, there will be a debate on the hydrogen supply chain next Tuesday in Westminster Hall. On Thursday 11 September, there will be two debates: one on improving regulations for non-surgical aesthetic and cosmetic treatments, and one on consumer affairs. On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I ask for early notice of the business we will be allocated in the week when we come back after the conference season, so that we can allocate time for many of the debates that are waiting.
Next week the London underground network is likely to grind to a halt, as the trade unions are calling out individual sections throughout that week. The last time the unions went on strike, the Labour Mayor of London had to find £30 million to buy them off. The Transport Secretary has long experience, having been Deputy Mayor for Transport in London, but as far as I am aware, she has not uttered a single word about what will happen next week. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Transport Secretary to come to the House and let us know what will happen in London next week if the strike goes ahead? I know we have Transport questions next Thursday, but frankly that is too late.
Lucy Powell
I welcome the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee back after recess, and thank him for announcing the forthcoming Backbench Business. I recognise the disruption to those who wanted to speak on Monday in the debate on transport inequality, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), and I am pleased that has been rescheduled for Thursday. I am happy to look at protecting time for that, so that Members can be confident about their contributions in what is obviously a well-subscribed debate.
On the tube strikes, nobody wants to see strike action in London. It is incredibly disruptive for commuters and businesses. As ever, the Government—and, I am sure, the Mayor of London—call on Transport for London and the unions to get back round the table so that those strikes do not go ahead next week.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I am becoming increasingly concerned about the level of fraud facing individuals and businesses in the UK. Fraud accounts for over 40% of all crime, from online and push payment fraud, to phishing, vishing and smishing, to name just a few schemes. I have even seen examples of businesses in my constituency being hit by various Companies House scams. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss how we can tackle these challenges moving forward?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise such issues. Fraud is increasingly prevalent across our country and economy. It is becoming increasingly sophisticated, especially given advances in technology such as AI. That is why the Government continue to focus on those issues. I think it would make a very good topic for a debate.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
In a week when the Liberal Democrat-run Arun district council has been found to have the worst possible grading for its social housing provision—including more than half of its homes being without smoke alarms—it is alleged that two senior directors, including one responsible for housing, have left the council with redundancy payments totalling £350,000. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how best to hold the council to account in this place for the benefit of taxpayers in my constituency?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the issues that the hon. Lady has rightly raised on behalf of her constituents. I do not know about those specific allegations, but I assure her that we take standards in local government incredibly seriously, as we take standards across all our politics seriously. We will have further legislation at some stage in this Parliament.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
This summer has been busy in Southend. Most importantly, this weekend we hosted City Jam, a jam-packed live street art festival. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending all the organisers who took part in producing such an incredible event, solidifying our flourishing cultural scene, from Lazydays festival and Summer in Nashville to Victory over Japan events in Rochford and Southend, and many more? Artworks from the UK’s largest street art festival, City Jam, will line our streets for a few weeks yet. I invite the whole House to join me in admiring Southend’s culture, and perhaps we can arrange a large ministerial visit to Southend.
Lucy Powell
That sounds like a great visit. I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend had such a sunny summer packed full of events in his constituency. I am delighted to join him in congratulating all the organisers.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Starting a family is a huge milestone for any couple but, crucially, it comes with a huge financial hit, as parents must scale back their working lives in order to care for their newborn. Ben Barnes in Keighley, the winner of best butcher across the whole of Yorkshire, has seen at first hand how, despite working extra hours, one of his employees is still worse off, because his partner is on maternity pay. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the merits of extending marriage allowance so that claimants can transfer a greater proportion of their personal allowance, in order to help young people take that crucial step of starting a family?
Lucy Powell
Can I pass on my congratulations to that employee of local butcher Ben Barnes on the birth of his first child? I am really pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman advocate so strongly for stronger maternity and paternity leave and pay; that has not always been what we have heard from the Conservative party and some of his colleagues. We are committed to strengthening rights and supporting pay. Just this week, we brought in the free childcare package, which will be worth £7,500 a year to families that qualify, and we are extending that further. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on strengthening it in the coming months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
More than 80 colleagues are bobbing. Unless Members are short in their contributions, they are denying others the opportunity to get in.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
Many parameters of the fair funding review will address social injustices in our communities, but places like York will lose out significantly. It is already the lowest-funded unitary authority in the country, the Lib Dem council previously spent all the reserves and we cannot afford to make further cuts. Will the Leader of the House ensure that local authorities that are going to lose out under the fair funding review can meet the Minister and have discussions before the parameters are published?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issues around fair funding. I know this is a really important matter for a number of colleagues. She will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has ensured a record local government funding settlement, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right: the devil is in the detail and we need to ensure that funding follows need. I will certainly arrange for her to have a meeting with the Minister.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
We all deal with Department for Work and Pensions casework through our teams, but in North East Fife we are seeing a transition to universal credit that means that vulnerable constituents—often those with dyslexia or learning disabilities —are really struggling. They are not being offered the enhanced support journey, and all are suffering due to departments not communicating and miscalculations. Can we have a debate in Government time on this issue, which I am sure affects MPs from across the House?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the cases in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I am sure the issues will be familiar to other hon. Members, especially those representing constituencies in Scotland. I am happy to facilitate a response from the Minister, so that we can make sure that the necessary steps are in place to alleviate the situation.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Libraries are vital spaces for learning, inclusion and communities. As Lindley library in my constituency marks 150 years, we celebrate its role in enriching lives and preserving local heritage. I hope the Leader of the House will join me in wishing the library a happy birthday and every success for its open day next week. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can better support libraries, like the one in Lindley, to grow and adapt for future generations?
Lucy Powell
Libraries are vital to our communities and high streets, and they provide people with access to knowledge and information, as they have done in decades gone by and will do in decades in the future. I support all my hon. Friend’s efforts to support Lindley library in his constituency.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
A month ago, I met Oliver Robinson from the British Trout Association. The association has produced an excellent report on the trout farming industry in the UK, but Oliver is struggling to get engagement from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. I tried to ask the Secretary of State about this in DEFRA questions earlier, but it would be much appreciated if the Leader of the House could make representations and try to set up that vital conversation.
Lucy Powell
I am happy to help facilitate a conversation with the relevant Minister about trout farming.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Under the Conservatives, 53% of buses were cut in my constituency, including the SL1 tram link bus, leaving many of my constituents unable to go to work or school in Sheffield. Thanks to our better buses Bill and the work done by our Labour mayor, Oliver Coppard, our buses are being brought back under public control. Will the Leader of the House advise me how I can work with Ministers, our Labour mayor and Sheffield city council in order to reinstate the vital SL1 tram link bus?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear that the SL1 route was scrapped under the previous Government. My hon. Friend makes a very strong case for our buses Bill and all the actions that we are taking to ensure that buses serve their local community, and are affordable and reliable. When such powers are used, we see a massive increase in the use of buses.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As I have said many times in this place, at Dounreay we have a highly skilled workforce, a licensed nuclear site and a local population who support the nuclear industry. Rolls-Royce has told me that it is very interested in placing its prototype advanced modular reactor at Dounreay, and yet we know that the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh will block that with their planning powers. What advice does the Leader of the House have for me? Will she facilitate a meeting with Ministers to try to get rid of this roadblock?
Lucy Powell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate for jobs and businesses in his constituency. He knows that this Government are committed to new nuclear power and to the most ambitious nuclear programme in a generation. I am really sorry to hear that the SNP Government are, as ever, likely to set themselves against this new investment and against new job opportunities in Scotland. Frankly, that is a pattern that we are seeing time after time, and I join him in calling on them to look again.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It was a very busy summer recess in Newcastle-under-Lyme, with 70 engagements in 34 days; my office was delighted to put me on the train on Monday. One of the highlights was attending the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Newcastle-under-Lyme branch of the Royal Air Forces Association. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the branch, its officers and its volunteers for the care and compassion that they show to our vets and their families, and send them a happy anniversary?
Lucy Powell
As someone who follows my hon. Friend on social media, I know that he has had a very busy recess, as have many colleagues; I have looked on jealously at many of the visits that people have been doing over the summer recess. I join him in congratulating the Royal Air Forces Association branch in his constituency on all that it does.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I will be short, as I already am. Can we have a debate about delays in obtaining driving tests? There is a growing problem with unscrupulous operators using bots to sweep up months’ worth of tests then selling them back to very frustrated parents and students at a profit. The Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency seems to be in denial about this issue. Can we have a debate in Parliament and try to fix this problem?
Lucy Powell
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman is a very big presence with his short question. He raises a topic that I know we all get many emails and complaints about. The Secretary of State for Transport has given an update to the House on these issues, and we are delivering 10,000 additional driving tests. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about how bots and others are using technology to secure those tests, and I will ensure that he gets a full response.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Tina Simpson and her team at the Loco Centre in Netherfield, as well as Nathan Kenney and Mapperley All Stars, for their brilliant work this summer in delivering the holiday activities and food programme in Gedling? Will she also welcome its very much-needed extension for three years by this Labour Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was the hon. Member’s first business question.
Lucy Powell
That was my hon. Friend’s first business question! I welcome him to the delights of business questions. They are normally followed by a compliment to me and an invitation to the constituency—I was waiting for that before I got up to reply. I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking Tina, Nathan and all those who provided such wonderful holiday facilities for children.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Regardless of the fact that there is no legal requirement on the Government of the United Kingdom to transfer ownership of the British Indian Ocean Territories to Mauritius, the Government have challenged the Opposition’s figures about the cost of that exercise. Before the debate on Tuesday, will the Government place in the Library of the House of Commons detailed estimates of the cost to the British taxpayer?
Lucy Powell
As ever, alongside legislation we publish all the necessary documents, including the costings, which we have been transparent about. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that before the election his Government embarked on 11 rounds of negotiations; they knew that the Government needed to resolve this issue in order to protect our defence and security for generations to come. I am pleased that we have managed to get that deal across the line.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Last weekend, a group of volunteers launched a fundraising activity to put on a new annual show hosting a hoedown in Epworth. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the rootin’ tootin’ team the best of luck in whip-cracking away on future events to raise loot to put on the first Isle country show in the year-haw 2026?
Lucy Powell
That is how it is done! My hon. Friend was once the master of Doncaster airport, and he is now the master of business question puns. I absolutely join him in wishing the team the best of luck.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Victoria Collins—follow that!
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I am afraid I cannot follow that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have a growing number of constituents who have reached out with concerns about cancer care, including one family in Berkhamsted in which the father, who has since sadly passed away, struggled to access consistent cancer care support and even found it hard to get hold of his consultant, while the mother-in-law, who lived elsewhere, had access to Macmillan nurses who made a world of difference. Will the Leader of the House help to secure a debate to address this postcode lottery in the national cancer plan?
Lucy Powell
This is not the first time that we have heard at business questions about the postcode lottery that remains when it comes to cancer care, particularly children’s cancer care. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue, and I will raise it with the Secretary of State. We have announced extra funding and will publish the national cancer plan later this year, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to update us.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend was as shocked as I was that a Member of this House went to another country and, in front of its Parliament, started to run this country down. What is the point of being elected to this place if Members are not prepared to bring these issues to the Floor of the House and have them debated? Will my right hon. Friend write to Members and remind them of the opportunities they have to raise these important issues so that we can scrutinise them in a proper way, rather than scuttle off to another country and act in a totally unpatriotic way? [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”]
Lucy Powell
Members ask, “Where are they?” I think Reform Members are busy doing each other’s ironing— I do not know whether people have seen that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For a Member of Parliament who claims to be acting in the British interest to go to another country to suggest that tariffs on this country are increased and that steps are taken to reduce job opportunities here is not just unpatriotic, but anti-British.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Following on from that question, Reform-led Leicestershire county council and Harborough district council have made a series of highly controversial decisions impacting on the people of Lutterworth and the surrounding villages. Does the Leader of the House agree that Freedom of Information Act requests that are made by constituents to public bodies should be answered, and will she help organise a meeting between me and the relevant Minister to discuss the lack of answers from those public bodies?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. We have seen Members of this House from the Reform party going around the world savaging our rights to free speech in this country, yet the councils they run are not prepared to answer questions on free speech. They are blocking local newspapers from scrutinising their work and, as the hon. Gentleman says, they are not opening themselves up to freedom of information requests. I will ensure he gets a ministerial response.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Over the summer recess, I volunteered with the junior Parkrun in Desborough. It was fantastic to see children excited about exercise, and to be there to celebrate Rose and Luna getting their half-marathon wristbands. I was especially struck by the dedication of the volunteers who make it possible every week in Desborough and Kettering and across the whole country. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Parkrun volunteers around the country, and provide time for a debate on community-led initiatives that promote physical activity?
Lucy Powell
The Parkrun and junior Parkrun initiatives are fantastic at engaging people in daily activity to keep them healthy and at bringing them together, tackling other issues such as loneliness. I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the organisers for their involvement.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Gretna Green in my constituency as not just the wedding capital of the UK, but the wedding capital of Europe? It is particularly popular with couples from the north-west, and obviously, any MP who is still looking to be wed would be made most welcome there. However, many of the rules and regulations around civil ceremonies are arcane and bureaucratic. While there must always be proper checks, surely simplicity, spontaneity, innovation and joy must also be important. As such, will the Leader of the House bring forward a debate on modernising marriage laws?
Lucy Powell
I am not sure whether any of the couples I mentioned at the beginning of this questions session got married in Gretna Green—maybe they can declare it if they did—but we are all of course very familiar with it as the iconic place for weddings in this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about simplifying some of the bureaucracy and making sure we remember what marriage is all about. I will get in touch with the relevant Minister on his behalf and see what we can do.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Next Wednesday is World Suicide Prevention Day. People can be nervous of talking about suicide, but it affects so many people in our communities. This year, Samaritans is sharing this message:
“If you think someone might be suicidal, take action, interrupt their thoughts and show them you care.”
There are events taking place across Parliament next week, but will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging Members to participate in next Thursday’s debate on suicide prevention, which has been announced today by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a passionate and long-standing campaigner around those issues, and she has raised them with me many times. I thank her for all the work she does raising the issues around suicide and suicide prevention. It is often an uncomfortable and difficult issue to talk about, and she leads from the front in making sure that people feel that they can do so. I certainly join her in encouraging Members to participate.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Charlie Dodds from Driffield in my constituency is just one year old and suffers from a rare mitochondrial condition. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to his parents, Harrison and Ellie, for the £35,000 they have raised for research into this condition? Will she commit Government time to a debate on NHS funding for rare conditions?
Lucy Powell
I certainly join the hon. Member in congratulating and thanking the parents of Charlie—Harrison and Ellie—for their phenomenal fundraising efforts. Rare diseases such as the one he describes are so difficult to tackle. That is why we need focus on them and extra funding and research, and I will ensure that he gets a full response.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Leader of the House might remember that back in March I informed the House about the search for funding and support for an incredible young man from Beckenham, Lucas De Gouveia. At just 14, he is already representing Great Britain in wheelchair tennis. I am delighted to update the House today that, working together, we have secured sponsorship for Lucas from companies including easyJet to help him with the additional costs of competing internationally. Together, we met the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), to raise the profile of wheelchair tennis and para-sport. Yesterday, Lucas won the quarter-final in the US Open wheelchair singles. He is the youngest competitor in the tournament. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Lawn Tennis Association and everyone who has supported Lucas, and wish him the very best of luck in the semi-final?
Lucy Powell
What a wonderful story. I know that raising that issue in business questions helped the hon. Gentleman to secure that funding and that sponsorship, so that Lucas could go to the US Open and compete. What fantastic news that he won his quarter-final and will now be in the semi-finals. I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Lawn Tennis Association, easyJet and all those who have made it possible.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action has caused a growing legal, political and policing crisis. A judicial review has been granted. The police are struggling to deal with the sheer volume of people being arrested, and the UK’s reputation has been seriously harmed. Does the Leader of the House recognise that this rushed proscription, and the cynical decision to bundle it together with two other clearly terrorist organisations, is bad politics and bad process? We should have a chance to revisit the decision, learn from this debacle and seriously consider the important human rights implications.
Lucy Powell
There is an extremely high bar for proscribing any organisation, and that decision was not taken lightly. It was taken on very strong advice about the activities of Palestine Action. Those activities were increasingly severe and, with increasing frequency, incredibly damaging. That is not to say that people cannot peacefully protest in support of Palestine or in support of many other organisations that support the Palestinian cause. As I said earlier, I strongly support recognition of Palestine and support the Palestinian cause, but that is not to say that we should support organisations that seek to cause real problems in this country.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The return to school in Bury North has seen the Derby and the Elton high schools introduce smartphone bans. I congratulate the principals Helen Hubert and Jonathan Wilton on their leadership in doing so. Like many of my Labour colleagues, through my smartphone-free schools campaign I have heard from hundreds of parents, teachers and pupils. Their overwhelming view is that smartphone use damages learning, concentration and behaviour while piling pressure on children to be permanently online. Will my right hon. Friend grant time to debate Government plans to help schools manage smartphones, so that every child can learn free from distraction and in a happier state?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend and a number of other colleagues for continuing to campaign on and raise these important issues. As parents and constituency MPs, we all see the damage that social media and unmitigated use of smartphones can cause to teenagers. He is absolutely right to highlight that schools already have the power to confiscate smartphones, and I am really pleased to hear that a couple of schools in his constituency have done so. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the guidance that we have issued, but I implore schools and parents to take a much more proactive approach in monitoring what children are up to on their smartphones.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I urge colleagues to keep their questions short, and the Leader of the House to keep her answers just as short?
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the outrage across the country regarding illegal immigration, asylum hotels and now the huge increase in the number of houses in multiple occupation. This is happening on a large scale in Romford, with a massive boom in HMOs. My constituents want to see an end to illegal immigration and the housing of asylum seekers in local hotels. However, transferring the problem to roads and neighbourhoods, and putting families and children at risk in residential streets, is not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate on the Floor of the House on the need to adopt an urgent strategy to end the use of hotels and HMOs for this purpose?
Lucy Powell
I share the frustration, concern and indeed anger in many parts about the huge use of asylum hotels, and now HMOs, in dealing with the asylum backlog, which was left by the hon. Gentleman’s party after it was in power. Indeed, I remember the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Justice Secretary going round the country opening these hotels and allowing this to happen. They left us with a huge backlog. We need to take all necessary steps to bring down illegal migration, deal with these issues and close the hotels. That is what we want to do, but as the hon. Gentleman says, we cannot just make the problem dissipate into other parts of the community. That is why we are working to tackle it.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), was yet again in the United States—speaking perhaps a little too freely about freedom of speech in this country, and doing Britain down—this Government, led by the Prime Minister, were building Britain up, including through a very welcome £10 billion deal to supply Norway with five Type 26 frigates? Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the supply chain that will support it, including BAE Systems in Scotland, which will build the ships, and GE Vernova in Rugby, which will supply the hybrid-electric propulsion systems, meaning quality jobs all across our great country?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend reminds us that the effects of the huge contract with Norway to build frigates in this country will be dissipated right through our economy and into constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s across the country. We should be celebrating the international agreements that we have, not going abroad and doing this country down.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I was disappointed that the Leader of the House, when she was celebrating summer moments, did not mention our Lionesses’ amazing victory in defending their European title.
In a less positive moment over the summer, the Metropolitan police announced the closure of Twickenham police station’s front counter as part of plans to close half of London’s police counters and reduce hours at many others. This comes despite Sadiq Khan’s 2024 manifesto commitment to maintain a 24-hour police counter in every borough, and Richmond borough will now be left without one. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the Met police’s funding for the forthcoming year and beyond, especially as the closures come on the back of the slashing of the Royal Parks police and our school police liaison officers?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for reminding me about the brilliant Lionesses’ triumph in the Euros earlier in the summer. I take this opportunity to congratulate them on that.
The hon. Lady raises the important issue of neighbourhood policing. Community policing has been hugely diminished over the last 10 to 15 years, and we are determined to fix it. The nature of how policing is done has changed, but we are providing the funding and the additional police officers for community and neighbourhood policing to flourish in constituencies like hers.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your very successful ice cream-inspired tour of your constituency during the recess.
I recently met a constituent of mine, Lou, who was part of a group that developed Turning Point and Learning Disability England’s information pack on “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation”. We know from LeDeR—learning disabilities mortality review—reports and other sources that too many learning disabled and autistic people die with a “do not resuscitate” order in place. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on the actions that have been taken to ensure that learning disabled people and their families are fully involved in and fully informed of any DNR decision?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend rightly raises a really important issue, which she has explained better than I could, about the challenges of DNRs, particularly for vulnerable people, and I hope that those involved will have listened to her question. I will ensure that she gets a full ministerial response and that the issue is looked at.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In December 2021, part of the roof of Kirkham baths was blown off during storm conditions, leaving Kirkham and all the surrounding rural areas without access to public baths. Since the operator was unable to fund the repairs, Fylde council has recently stepped in to purchase the baths for £1 and is embarking on a project to refurbish them. I am very grateful that the Leader of the House has agreed to come to Fylde to have an ice cream and look at projects in the St Annes area. I know I would be testing her generosity too far if I invited her to Fylde for a swim together, so could we instead have a debate in Government time on how the £400 million of grassroots funding that the Government have announced can be used to support swimming baths in rural areas?
Lucy Powell
I am very happy to have an ice cream, but I am not sure that the hon. Member’s constituents are quite ready to see me in a swimming costume just yet. I am pleased to hear that Kirkham baths has been saved and will now be refurbished. That is exactly why we have put the money into grassroots sport, but it is also why we have given local government such a big settlement, because things such as Kirkham baths are so important to our communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Apsana Begum. Take your time.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
In asking my question, I will update the House on the extraordinary situation that I continue to face in relation to my safety and security. It is just over a year since my ex-husband stood against me at the general election, after he was expelled from the Labour party last year for his treatment of me in a campaign of ongoing post-separation harassment and abuse—excuse me—with his stated aim of exposing who I really was and getting even with me. I continue to endure this on an ongoing basis, alongside the relentless attempts to unjustly remove me as an MP by a clique of his associates, who are still active and are seeking to stand for office at next year’s elections. The impact of all this is devastating and the wall of institutional gaslighting is incredibly chilling.
Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on domestic abuse and public life to enable us to explore the duty of care that should be placed on employers and political parties to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles, including those of us undertaking public service? I have been working with MPs from all political parties to call for this. Thank you.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member once again for her bravery and her powerful testimony. I know many of us continue to be appalled by the experiences she has had over a number of years in the campaign brought by her abusive ex-husband and what he has tried to do in undermining her capacity to be an effective Member of Parliament, which she continues to be. I hear her calls today for the steps that need to be taken to ensure that this cannot happen again, and particularly that it cannot happen again to her. We have an elections Bill coming to the House soon, which will look at issues such as the suitability of candidates and their behaviour towards other candidates, and I am sure there will be ample opportunity for us all to support her in raising some of these issues during the passage of that Bill.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I express my sympathy? No woman in this place will not feel deeply horrified and touched by what we have just heard.
I will not invite the Leader of the House to visit Portals paper mill in my constituency, although she should because it is an amazing company that is 300 years old and manufactures security-grade paper. It produces passports for countries across the world, but absurdly not our own, which are produced by a French company abroad. May we have a statement from the Home Office on the security implications if future contracts do not require primary production and personalisation of UK passports to take place here in the UK?
Lucy Powell
I think we all remember when the previous Government gave the contract for our passport production to a French company in the post-Brexit era. We all found it rather strange at the time. This Government are committed to buying British and to British procurement, and we will bring forward legislation and other means of ensuring that that can better happen.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Over the summer recess, two older Sikh taxi drivers were attacked outside Wolverhampton train station, one of whom is a constituent of mine. Although I commend British Transport police for making arrests quickly, meeting me and acknowledging that the attacks were racially motivated, many people, including me, were shocked and horrified by the nature of the attacks, which have made the local community feel vulnerable, particularly in light of the far-right rhetoric that has recently been spreading. Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister so that I can reassure my constituents that the Government treat hate crime with the utmost seriousness and will do all in their power to tackle racial prejudice and discrimination?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that awful case today. As he says, the Government take hate crime incredibly seriously. No one should ever be a victim of hatred because of their race or religion. We need to combat and stand up to rhetoric and campaigns that can make people feel insecure in their communities, and I look forward to working with him to that end.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
In December, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to adequately dredge Somerset’s rivers and maintain our drainage network. The EA has now announced that it will withdraw entirely from main river maintenance in Somerset. My constituents are concerned that without proper maintenance we may see a repeat of the devastating 2013-14 floods. May I repeat my request to her to find Government time for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to fulfil its duties?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue again. It is not the first time that I have heard of problems in the Environment Agency and about its not following through on the commitments that it has given. I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response, but we are determined that the Environment Agency and others should be held to account for the actions they take, and that they should take more responsibility for prevention.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 into law is a great achievement of the Government’s first year, and the completion of the Employment Rights Bill will be another. As we get into the business of taking the private rail franchises and their employees back into the public sector, it is vital that the transfer of undertakings process fully engages trade unions, fully protects employment rights and, as we bring in private franchises with varying terms, levels those up to a national gold standard. May we have a statement on how the Government are preparing for that transition?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to say that bringing rail back into public ownership and our Employment Rights Bill are flagship policies of this Government, and I am particularly proud of them. We will ensure that as we take rail back into public ownership, it is done in the best interests of passengers and ensures that staff are well looked after and do not take industrial action, as they did under the previous Government.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. After the insolvency of Allied Steel and Wire, money that workers paid into their pension schemes before April 1997 was not fully inflation-proofed through the financial assistance scheme. The previous Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the UK Government legislate to provide pre-1997 indexation. I have tabled two amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill to do exactly that. Can the Leader of the House allow Government time to update the House on actions to rectify that scandal and others, such as the British Coal staff superannuation scheme scandal?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising another important issue on behalf of her constituents. That Bill is currently on the Committee corridor; when it returns to this Chamber, she will be able to raise those important matters. In the meantime, I will ensure that she gets a ministerial response.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
British passenger railway turns 200 this month, so let us give it the proper birthday present it deserves: European rail in the north. Can we have a debate on using disused High Speed 2 land for a Leeds to Lille line, which could transform the visitor economies in Leeds, Manchester, York and beyond?
Lucy Powell
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming a new dad earlier this summer. I thank him once again for being such a brilliant champion for proper investment in our northern rail and connectivity, which is absolutely vital to the rebirth of our regions.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Sea Palling in my constituency has little mobile signal, and its emergency sirens were removed 16 years ago. Ahead of the weekend’s emergency alert test, I asked the Cabinet Office what it would do for communities such as Sea Palling. We went back and forth three times, and I am really frustrated that the answer was to knock on doors—in a rural, isolated community that is susceptible to rapid tidal flooding. Will the Leader of the House convey to the Cabinet Office the sense from people in Sea Palling that in communities such as theirs, the Government just do not get it?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the response the hon. Gentleman has had. We are working with telecommunications companies to reduce poor mobile signal—particularly in rural areas, which is not an easy task—and we have the shared rural network deal. However, I will ensure that he gets a better ministerial response to his questions.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents—like yours, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker—want to have ready access to cash and banking facilities, but when the Lloyds bank in Stoke town closes its doors later this year, the town will have no banking facilities. The Link assessment has determined that the three sub-post offices just under a mile from the town centre are sufficient to provide services. May we have a debate in Government time, or a statement from the relevant Minister, on the criteria for access to banking hubs so that, as the Government roll out more, we can ensure that they hit urban communities as well as rural ones?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which is raised with me all the time in business questions. I know that there is nothing more concerning to a local community than the closure of a bank or post office on the high street or in the town centre, knowing what that will mean for accessing cash. I will ensure that my she gets a full response about the roll-out of banking hubs.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Over the summer, a constituent who is a mortgage adviser came to me with concerns about so-called conditional selling by estate agents, where prospective home buyers feel pressurised to take the estate agent’s in-house mortgage rather than risk losing out on a house. This practice breaches the Estate Agents Act 1979. It has been raised in investigations by the Financial Times and “Panorama”, which suggested that the practice is common. Could the Leader of the House point me to the Minister responsible so that we can have a discussion? Perhaps we could have a debate on this matter in Government time.
Lucy Powell
I will certainly ensure that the hon. Lady gets a discussion with the relevant Minister on the issue of conditional selling, which sounds like something that should concern us all.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This Labour Government have committed £13 million to tackling food poverty, supported by an expansion of free school meals and a drive to get fresh produce from farms to families’ tables. After 14 years of Tory economic failure, too many families are still struggling and food banks remain indispensable. In Leyton and Wanstead, a much-loved food bank, PL84U, recently faced eviction, but thanks to the swift action of Waltham Forest council, especially Councillors Grace Williams and Ahsan Khan, it has a new home—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) will be pleased to invite the Leader of the House to visit Saira and her team. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we support food banks and community aid to secure premises while this Government get on with the work to tackle the Tory failures that mean they must remain?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We need much shorter questions, please.
Lucy Powell
Food poverty remains a huge blight on our country. This Government are absolutely committed to tackling it, which is why we have extended free breakfast clubs and introduced this huge expansion in free school meals, which is something I am sure we can all be proud of. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In the month of August alone, across our country mosques as well as women, children and families have been subjected to unacceptable levels of Islamophobic abuse and attacks—from a young Muslim mother with her young child being abused in a park in Yorkshire for simply wearing a niqab, to a young autistic man in Manchester being threatened to have his throat slit and told to go to his mosque. Does the Leader of the House agree that some language and rhetoric used by some Members both in this Chamber and in some media outlets fuel this hatred on the streets? Given the ever-increasing number of attacks, will she remind Members of our responsibility in our use of language, and will she urge the Government to expediate the ongoing consultation and urgently adopt a robust definition of Islamophobia?
Lucy Powell
The rise in Islamophobia, which we have all seen in our constituencies—I know I have seen it in mine—is absolutely unacceptable. Hate crime itself is unacceptable, and we need to call it out and root it out. We have the independent working group, which is soon to advise Ministers on the definition of Islamophobia, and we have a wider action plan to tackle the issues. The hon. Member is right to say that we should all be mindful of the language we use and the impact it might have.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
At the peak of summer this year, at the height of tourism season, beaches in Kinghorn and Burntisland were closed because sewage spills made the water unsafe to enter. My constituents have been let down by the SNP Government’s failure to invest in our sewerage network and by publicly owned Scottish Water, whose chief executive said—astonishingly—that concerns should not be overblown. Does the Leader of the House agree that clean water is the least that the people of Fife deserve, and will she make time for a debate on this subject?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear that the beaches in the hon. Member’s constituency have been closed. It is unacceptable that sewage has been flowing into the sea around her constituency. As she says, the Scottish Government are responsible for Scottish Water. They should get their act together and follow what we have been doing in England.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Yet again this summer the stunning Dorset heathlands in my constituency were devastated by a fire at Holt Heath. The National Fire Chiefs Council said that before this and the devastating North York moors fire, this year’s numbers were 668% higher than last year, and 33% higher than the highest year. I have written to all 17 fire services that came to our aid. We cannot carry on like this, so will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on emergency resilience against climate-related crises?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member is right to highlight that, as the climate changes rapidly, unfortunately we are going to see more wildfires in the summer and more flooding in the winter. We are funding a national resilience wildfire adviser and looking at how we can work with stakeholders and everybody else to tackle this issue and build our resilience.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
For 16 years, people in Burntwood in my constituency have had to visit their GP in portacabins in the car park of a leisure centre. The site was closed in March 2024, but there was no replacement and 5,000 patients were distributed to other surgeries. No one agreed with that decision, but we were told that all would be well because the Conservative-controlled county council would have a replacement built and ready to operate by the end of this year. That council failed, and now the Reform-controlled county council is failing too. It has not even submitted a planning application, and there is no chance that it will keep its promise to the people of Burntwood and open the centre this year. Will you join me in telling that council to get their thumb out and get this done?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
No, I will not be joining you. Obviously you mean the Leader of the House.
Lucy Powell
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in telling Staffordshire county council—which I hear a lot of complaints about in business questions, I have to say—to get its act together and get this new GP surgery open so it can serve his constituents.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The people of Whitchurch in my constituency will be quite pleased to see the response to my written question regarding the Access for All railway fund, which shows that £280 million has been allocated for the spending review period, but they will be really keen to know when we are getting step-free access at Whitchurch station. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport to outline how this money will be spent and, critically, where and when? If the Leader of the House would like to come to Whitchurch from her own constituency, she could experience the footbridge and lack of step-free access herself.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of step-free access at her local station—this issue is raised with me all the time at business questions. I am sure that a debate on the topic would be very well subscribed, if she wanted one, but I will ensure that she gets a ministerial response. I am pleased to hear about her written question.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It was fantastic to see Derby buzzing over the summer when over three days 40,000 visitors were in the city visiting The Greatest Gathering as we brought together the world’s largest ever collection of historical and modern rolling stock. Will my right hon. Friend join me in acknowledging the huge effort made by volunteers not just from Derby but from all over the UK to pull off that spectacular event? Does she agree that, with the arrival of Great British Railways’ headquarters in Derby, we can build on this great heritage and look for a bright future in rail manufacturing?
Lucy Powell
It might not be quite an Oasis concert, but I am sure that the railway gathering in Derby that my hon. Friend describes was a fantastic event to champion the rail industry in his constituency. I am really pleased that Great British Railways will be based in Derby so that we can continue to provide the jobs of the future.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Last Sunday I visited the River Snail, a chalk stream in my constituency, and was horrified to see not a river but a dried and cracked river bed. Our chalk streams, which are a really important part of our biodiversity, are under increasing threat from climate change. Could the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on how we will protect our precious chalk streams?
Lucy Powell
I know how important chalk streams are to our biodiversity and to many of our rural communities. We will bring forward further plans about how we can secure our waterways in all their forms, and I will ensure that the hon. Member gets an update from the relevant Minister.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Whether they are about the much needed eastern link road, the rail link to Milton Keynes or the many traffic hotspots, so many of the conversations I have with my residents come back to the same issue of our poor infrastructure and the impact it has on people’s quality of life. The Government’s announcement this week of £1.4 million of investment into transport funding for Buckinghamshire is therefore hugely welcome, opening up the potential to decrease congestion, improve pedestrian safety and much more. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming that funding? Will she urge Buckinghamshire council to use it to give Aylesbury the boost we need?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that extra funding for Buckinghamshire and in her calls for the council to use it wisely to decrease congestion and support commuters in her constituency.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
During recess, at an event to promote the new Avon and Somerset victim service, concerns were raised with me about the delay in publishing a new hate crime action plan for England and Wales to replace the one that expired in 2020. Will the Leader of the House tell us when a new plan will be published? If not, will she agree to raise that with the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention as a matter of urgency?
Lucy Powell
We are determined to tackle all forms of hatred and division and to take action on hate crime. It has been a topic for much discussion in our Crime and Policing Bill, but I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a ministerial response about the timeliness of the new action plan.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Over the summer recess, I met the Shore collective: a group of hospitality businesses in my constituency that have come together—it includes Tapa, which recently won the best local restaurant award in The Scotsman’s 2025 scran awards. Many businesses like Tapa are struggling with rising energy and raw ingredient costs. Will the Leader of the House join me in going to Tapa—obviously—and congratulating it? Will she outline what work Ministers are doing together across the Government to support such businesses?
Lucy Powell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating that collective in her constituency, and I am always happy to get an invitation to a hospitality venue. I am well aware of the challenges for the hospitality sector relating to rising costs, access to staff, still dealing with covid repayments and so on. That is why the Government are supporting hospitality by taking action on business rates and on skills as well as in many other ways. I am sure that would make a good topic for a debate.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Environment Agency has issued notice of its permanent withdrawal from main river maintenance to riparian owners in Somerset and North Somerset. The Leader of the House and Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will recall the devastation caused by flooding in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Regular maintenance is essential to allow floodwater to escape from what is a man-made landscape in the Somerset levels and moors. Will she ask the DEFRA Secretary to insist that the Environment Agency rescinds its withdrawal notices until such a time as locally all the flood risk management groups, the internal drainage board, the South West Association of Drainage Authorities and every interested party has a chance at least to meet, discuss and plan a sustainable and funded solution for the future, and that, importantly, it carries on maintaining the main rivers in the meantime? Winter is coming, and rainfall with it.
Lucy Powell
This is about the third complaint about the Environment Agency in today’s session, so perhaps colleagues should get together to try and get a broader debate on those issues. We have announced the largest programme on flooding in history, and we have our flood resilience taskforce, but the hon. Lady is right to say that all partners need to play their part. I will ensure she receives a proper response.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the course of the summer, like many in the House, I have had a chance to meet so many of the volunteers across my constituency, from organisations such as North Tyneside Disability Forum, Seghill Food Hub, Rape Crisis Tyneside and Northumberland, Age UK and Forward Assist, every one of them improving and changing lives every single day. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them, and may we have a debate in Government time to recognise the importance of volunteers and the difference that they make?
Lucy Powell
I know how busy my hon. Friend has been over the recess, meeting many of her constituents and celebrating the volunteers and the communities that she represents. I join her in doing that this morning.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Over the summer, elderly and frail constituents in villages across my North Cornwall constituency raised with me how difficult it is to travel to their nearest district hospital. They rely on infrequent public transport and can face journeys of more than three hours to Treliske, three and a half hours to Derriford and up to six hours to Barnstaple hospital. Will the Leader of the House please commit to a debate in Government time on establishing more district hospitals in areas, such as Bodmin, that really need them?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue about not only health services and where they are located, but access in constituencies such as his to affordable and reliable buses and transportation. This Government are tackling both of those after years of devastation in our health services and our buses. After 14 years of the Conservatives, I hope that his constituents will start to feel the benefit soon.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the firefighters, farmers, volunteers and all the businesses, such as Woodsmith, that have come together to tackle the fires in North Yorkshire. Will the Leader of the House join me in giving thanks to everyone who has come out to tackle those blazes? What support can be provided to those who have come together to do so?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those who have come together to tackle the wildfires in Yorkshire that we have all been hearing about. As our climate changes every day, we will see more wildfires and more flooding. That is why we have set up the national resilience wildfire adviser and will take further steps on that. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in the coming months.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Recently, I have had meetings with AI technology companies and medical professionals, seeing how AI can help speed up cancer diagnosis and make the NHS workforce much more efficient, ultimately saving lives. However, hospital systems and staff are not yet ready to start utilising new AI systems in diagnostics, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time so we can discuss a framework that hospital managers can adopt to implement AI diagnosis effectively and help save lives?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the huge opportunity that AI and technology present, especially in terms of diagnostics and healthcare services. He is also right to highlight that the real challenge to that is adoption and diffusion through our health system. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is committed to delivering that by working across Government, and I am sure he will continue to keep the House updated.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I recently met Vicki Quarton from Touchstones child bereavement services in Cookhill in my constituency and heard about the incredible work that she and her team are doing to support young people who have lost a loved one—often a parent. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that local groups such as Touchstones get the support they need to continue to help children affected by loss, especially when so many fall victim to violence against women and girls?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Touchstones and all its work for bereaved children and especially those who are bereaved due to domestic violence. Its work is vital in supporting children through probably the most difficult time of their lives and I thank him for raising that.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One of the issues concerning me is what scrutiny and accountability the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s new code of practice and guidance will have from this House. My understanding is that it will be laid before the House as a negative statutory instrument, meaning that unless the Leader of the Opposition pushes for time and scrutiny, there may be none. Will the Leader of the House outline what opportunities Members will get to scrutinise that guidance when it is published?
Lucy Powell
I know the new guidance from the EHRC is of great interest to many Members across this House; it is something that I get many emails and correspondence about myself. A parliamentary process will sit alongside that, but I will absolutely ensure that there is appropriate time to debate and discuss these issues, which I know are important to the House.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Local community councillors in Cathcart have long campaigned for step-free access to Cathcart train station. I welcome the investment in the spending review, but I would like to see some of that money come to Cathcart station. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on train station accessibility, and would she help facilitate a meeting with the Minister?
Lucy Powell
Train station accessibility is an important issue to many Members. I am sure that if he joins together with some of the Opposition Members who have raised that issue with me today, it would attract the interest of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to raise concerning reports of an increase in Taliban crackdowns on women in Afghanistan. Those include widespread instances of violent beatings, arbitrary arrests for so-called non-compliance with extreme dress codes, total bans on women’s education and the forced closure of women- led businesses. Will the Leader of the House urge the Minister responsible to make a statement outlining what concrete steps the Government are taking to ensure the lifting of restrictions on Afghan women and girls and their human rights?
Lucy Powell
I welcome back the hon. Gentleman after the recess. He has not missed one of my business questions. I noticed that he has spoken the most in Parliament of any Member—apart from me, actually. I now have a new title, which is that I have spoken more than the hon. Member for Strangford—long may that continue. He raises an important issue around the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan, and this Government continue to condemn the appalling actions there. We will do all we can to ensure that our views are heard.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Churches across the country are struggling to manage their estates, with many buildings going up for sale. Last Sunday, I attended a service of union, with the Bo’ness Old Kirk and St Andrew’s parish church uniting to form the new Bo’ness parish church. While there can be sadness at leaving a church behind, there is much hope and faith as the parishioners move forward together. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the congregation and the ministers, wishing them the very best in this new chapter?
Lucy Powell
I know how hard it is for people to see churches go in their area and to transition to going to a new church. She raises an important issue, and I will ensure that she gets a response.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Sycamore adventure centre in Upper Gornal has been a lifeline for children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, for over 15 years. Yet despite pledging funding for it for five years in April in a public Q&A, the Conservative-led council is now forcing it to be privatised, with uncapped entry costs, reduced play areas and hours, and no proper consultation. Children face losing vital access to this centre. Does the Leader of the House share my outrage and will she grant time for a debate on protecting community assets?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the action of her Conservative council in her area in relation to the Sycamore adventure centre. We had the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill this week, and we will give more local communities like hers the power to take over such provision as she describes.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Last month, I joined the staff and students of Worden academy in Leyland as the GCSE results were announced. Ten years ago, that school faced a challenging future. This year, it just delivered its best ever set of GCSE results, giving those young people the best possible start in life. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending our heartfelt congratulations to the headmaster Mr Alan Hammersley, the chair of governors Mrs Maureen Woodall, and all its staff and students? They should be supremely proud of what they have all achieved.
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who got their GCSE results this summer, in his constituency and around the country, on all their hard work, particularly those at Worden academy. The headteacher and leadership team there have turned that school around and are getting fantastic results this year.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Rabi Maharajan and his team at Dé Buddha restaurant in my constituency on their incredible achievement of “best dining experience” at the Scottish hospitality awards? I urge Members across the House to come and sample the excellent Nepalese cuisine at Dé Buddha in Johnstone.
Lucy Powell
Dé Buddha sounds like a fantastic restaurant. I congratulate its staff on winning the “best dining experience” award. Maybe an invitation will follow.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House well knows, Rossendale is the only local authority area in the north without a commuter rail link. Rossendale council’s city-to-valley proposal would have finally addressed that by linking us up with Manchester. The idea was repeatedly shot down by the previous Government, but this Government’s increased regional transport fund means that we finally have a chance to get a fair hearing. However, challenges remain in getting the project delivered into the investment pipeline, particularly as it crosses local authority borders. Will she agree to a debate on how we can get vital projects such as Rossendale’s city-to-valley rail over the line?
Lucy Powell
As ever, my hon. Friend raises the issue of connectivity and transport in his Rossendale and Darwen constituency. As a nearby MP, I know all too well the real need for a rail link between Rossendale, Darwen and Manchester, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that this Labour Government deliver on that.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Kidsgrove post office has been closed for over six months now, and residents have been left without vital services. The Post Office will not tell residents why it was closed so suddenly or when it may reopen. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Post Office must be more open with residents about what is happening? This has been going on for far too long.
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in that call. When post offices close, especially at short notice, it causes huge consternation in local communities. I call on him and other Members of Parliament to stand up against the Post Office on those decisions and get the best for their constituents.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House enjoys a tipple on occasion, so she will be pleased to know that the 46th Peterborough beer festival, which is entirely run by volunteers, was held last month. Over 21,000 visitors came to the festival this year, and over 58,000 pints of cask ale were served. I was pleased that Green Devil, by our very own Oakham Ales, was crowned the Campaign for Real Ale beer of the festival. Will she join me in thanking Mike Lane for organising his 39th beer festival in the city, as well as all the other volunteers, and will she make time in the House for a debate on the importance of volunteers to such community festivals?
Lucy Powell
In the interests of setting the record straight, I must say to the House that I am a complete lightweight these days and much prefer zero-alcohol beer over anything else. I am sure that there were some fantastic zero beers at the festival in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I join him in congratulating Mike Lane and all the others on serving 58,000 pints there.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Over the summer, hundreds of Telford residents joined me in demanding that the Conservative police and crime commissioner scrap his 8 pm cap on police community support officers patrolling the streets of Telford. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the importance of neighbourhood policing so that we can send the commissioner a clear message: “The Government are providing you with money for community policing, so you should keep police officers and PCSOs on the streets of Telford”?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in that call. We want more neighbourhood police officers patrolling our streets, particularly at the times of day when crime is most likely to be committed and people want to feel safe.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I recently met grassroots football teams, including King Park Dynamos, Generation Elite Academy, Queens Park ladies and the AFC Bournemouth community sports trust Minikickers. They want more football pitches in Bournemouth, and Kings park would be the perfect place, but the athletics track needs fixing, the master plan updating and the playground enhancing, and Kings park nursery should be brought into use again. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on access to grassroots sport?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in saying that Bournemouth needs more football pitches. That is why we are investing more in grassroots sport and have given more money to local government. It is vital that those sorts of facilities are there for communities and young people to keep healthy and fit.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
A book by investigative journalist Nick Davies is out today. It reveals the true scale of the deletion of millions of emails and evidence essential to Parliament, the police and the courts in uncovering the truth about phone hacking by Rupert Murdoch employees. Might we have a debate on the reality of two-tier justice—cover-up, corruption and contempt of law—in which oligarchs place themselves above scrutiny?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am aware that that book is out today, but I have not had a chance to look at it. I am clear that Parliament needs to play its role in scrutinising those types of institutions, and any attempt to silence Members of Parliament is completely unacceptable. I look forward to working with her and other Members on taking that forward.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Residents of Overseal in my constituency woke up over the August bank holiday weekend to find a Traveller site being constructed behind their homes without planning permission and with complete disregard for due process, ignoring a stop order that had been secured by local councillor Amy Wheelton and officers of the council. That presents Derbyshire district council with a potentially costly and lengthy legal process, and denies local people any opportunity for consultation and comment. A member of my team has met residents, and I will meet them this weekend at my earliest opportunity. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the measures that we can take in this place to help constituents such as mine?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the trouble that my hon. Friend is having in her constituency and of the challenges in supporting her council and police to take action. We keep powers under constant review to ensure they are effective in tackling unauthorised encampments. I will keep her updated on that.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Blooming Bairns, a group of community volunteers committed to seeing Falkirk town centre flourish, have put in a marathon effort in service of our community. Their planting on Newmarket Street, Vicar Street and the High Street has breathed new life into our town centre. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Blooming Bairns for their 1,900-plus hours of community volunteering and congratulate them on their recent one-year anniversary?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Blooming Bairns on their community work over the past year.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Yesterday the Tory Mayor of Tees Valley took to social media to claim falsely that Venator, a brilliant company operating in my constituency, had gone into administration, and that UK tax policy was to blame. I spoke to the company yesterday afternoon, and it made it clear that that is not true. The UK operation is solvent and healthy, and nothing that is happening to its international holding company has anything to do with UK tax policy. It is a strong and successful company, and we must work to secure its long-term future. These are people’s jobs; these are people’s lives. My constituents are not political footballs for Ben Houchen to kick around. Will the Leader of the House join me in correcting the record, offering our support to that brilliant Hartlepool company and its workforce, and encouraging the Mayor of Tees Valley to stop playing politics, grow up and apologise?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear that false claims have been made on social media. My hon. Friend has just outlined how irresponsible that can be and the devastating impact that it can have on jobs and investment in constituencies such as his. I am sure that Mayor Houchen has heard his question and will rectify the situation.
Louise Sandher-Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Having recently married—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!]— I have elected to change my surname. Despite having been warned in advance, I am horrified by the sheer number of bodies, organisations, Departments and agencies that I need to inform. Will the Leader of the House update us on whether any consideration of digital ID will include making it far easier for people in my position, or who have changed their surname for other reasons, to do so quickly and easily?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her marriage over recess. She looked absolutely beautiful and incredibly happy on her wedding day. I am sorry to hear of the multifaceted challenge that she faces in changing her name everywhere. I am sure that, were it to be developed, digital ID would address some of those issues. I am happy to ensure that those issues are looked into.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Firefighters tackling the huge blaze on the North York Moors faced incredibly difficult conditions, including exploding munitions from an old tank training base near RAF Fylingdales. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the bravery and service of North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service and thank other fire services across the country who are supporting us through national resilience?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. We all heard about the incident in my hon. Friend’s constituency and join her in thanking all those who worked with the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service and the volunteers who helped to get the situation under control for the bravery they showed. I think we do need more of a debate about future resilience in terms of wildfires.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
In January, the sewer on Church Street in Northborough, a village in my constituency, collapsed. After several attempts by Anglian Water, it still has not been fixed eight months later. This means a risk of contamination, and because of road closures, it is causing huge potholes on surrounding roads. Householders on Church Street are even reporting cracks in their homes. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate in Parliament on significant infrastructure damage by water companies and the impact that that has on residents?
Lucy Powell
Anglian Water needs to sort out the situation with the sewer in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I will raise that for him with Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The SNP Government have awarded public contracts to China, Turkey and Poland to build Scottish ferries and buses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP Government should accept the offer from the UK Government to rewrite Scottish procurement rules—as they have previously in a range of other areas, including regulation around the sale of vapes and keeping ScotRail in public hands—and that those changes should get on to the statute book as soon as possible, to stop the disadvantaging of local firms, boost the Scottish economy and protect thousands of Scottish jobs?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. We are taking steps in England to ensure that local communities have more of a say over their local area—we invest in our high streets and local communities—and I implore the Scottish Government to do the same in Scotland.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
The current drafting of national planning policy is allowing developers to ride roughshod over local democracy, imposing completely inappropriate bolt-on estates to market towns such as Buntingford and Royston, while wholly failing to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need. It is difficult to imagine a system and state of affairs more likely to erode public support for the Government’s house building ambitions. Can we have a debate in Government time to ensure the presumption in favour of sustainable development achieves what it is intended to, rather than the current farce?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. We are unashamedly pro house building as a Government, but as he says, that does not mean we are pro developers getting away with poor developments. That is why communities need to continue to have a say in what they are doing. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in the House of Lords at the moment and will come back to this place soon for further debate.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Wales’s oldest city, Bangor, celebrates its 1,500th anniversary this year. I would like to invite everyone to the Bangor day that I am holding in Parliament next week, to meet some of the people shaping the future of that amazing city; and I hope the Leader of the House will consider popping in for five minutes after business questions.
Lucy Powell
There is no better champion for Bangor than my hon. Friend. It is a fantastic Welsh city. It is almost a Cinderella—a forgotten but brilliant city with huge potential and a great history. I would be delighted to pop along there sometime soon.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
In Shrewsbury, we are delighted to see the extra Government investment in our local police force, which has enabled us to reopen our town centre police hub this week. It is essential to keep our town centre safe and reduce response times. Can we have a debate on how important it is to have police hubs in the town centre in places like Shrewsbury?
Lucy Powell
I am really pleased to hear that the police hub in Shrewsbury has reopened. That is exactly the kind of action we want to see. That is why we are investing so heavily in neighbourhood policing and we have our neighbourhood policing guarantee, and I look forward to hearing more about it in the future.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My constituents in Horwich are gravely concerned about unsuitable family homes being repurposed into houses in multiple occupation with little transparency about who is being housed there and when. To my immense frustration as the local Member of Parliament, I often hear about such proposals on social media, which all too often runs rife with false information. Will the Leader of the House allow Government time for a debate on why companies such as Serco do not proactively tell Members of this House where individuals, including asylum seekers, are being placed, so that instead of conjecture, the truth can prevail.
Lucy Powell
I know it is of great concern to many Members across the House when they see properties becoming HMOs and they do not have any recourse over that, particularly where they see Government agencies such as Serco going in and undermining the needs of local communities. We are looking at this, and I will ensure the House is kept updated.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Cody Townend and Zoe Ward are two mums from Leeds who tragically lost babies in different circumstances. Cody lost Macie-Mae earlier this year, and Zoe lost Bleu four years ago. They both went to the same funeral director who, to their horror, kept their babies’ bodies in her private home without their consent and did not treat them with the respect and dignity they deserved. The BBC revealed more shocking details about this case last week, which I will not repeat now. Given that the police found nothing actionable in either case because there is no regulation of the funeral industry, meaning that anyone—anyone—can be a funeral director, will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate in Government time on the need to regulate the funeral industry, so that no one has to experience what Cody and Zoe did ever again?
Lucy Powell
This is a truly shocking case, and my thoughts are with Cody, Zoe and the many others who have experienced truly appalling actions like this. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the regulation of funeral directors; we have seen a number of shocking cases in recent months. I will ensure he gets a ministerial response, but I think this would make an incredibly important and powerful debate in this House.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I am wearing a ribbon to commemorate the life of Norma Symonds, a former Conservative councillor and town mayor of Bishop’s Stortford. Determined, courageous and kind, Norma dedicated her life to supporting those who needed help and serving our community, giving a voice to the voiceless. She set an example to the rest of us that, beyond parties and politics, what matters most is helping others. Will the Leader of the House, and indeed the whole House, join me in paying tribute to the life of a remarkable woman and sending best wishes to her family, friends and colleagues?
Lucy Powell
What a powerful testimony that my hon. Friend has chosen to raise Norma Symonds, who was a former Conservative councillor in his constituency. She sounds like a remarkable woman, and I thank him for taking the opportunity to raise that today.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Next Saturday, Kielder is hosting the 75th annual leek show in the Kielder Tavern. We are all familiar with leaks in this place, but will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the stellar effort of the Kielder community, and can we have a debate in Government time on community initiatives—particularly in rural areas—which contribute so much to the culture of Northumberland and other rural counties?
Lucy Powell
As ever, my hon. Friend raises important activities happening in his constituency. He is a powerful advocate for community empowerment in his constituency. I join him in thanking those behind such initiatives, which we will have ample opportunity to discuss in the coming months.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The infected blood scandal has had a devastating impact on families across the country, including my 82-year-old constituent Jean Campbell, who tragically lost her much-loved husband. Spouses who have lost those dearest to them have also, in many cases, lived restricted lives, yet they are still having to fight for compensation. I greatly welcome the announcement in July, but can my right hon. Friend secure time for a statement or debate, to provide reassurance to those like Jean that they will not have to wait years for compensation, particularly given the age of some of the victims of this scandal?
Lucy Powell
The victims of this scandal, like Jean, have suffered terribly for many years, as my hon. Friend describes. I am sure he will agree that no amount of compensation can make up for that, but that is not to say we should not continue, as this Government have, to ensure compensation is delivered swiftly, fairly and substantively to people like Jean. He will be aware that the Minister for the Cabinet Office updated the House in July. He has been very forthcoming with his updates to the House, and I will make sure my hon. Friend and other colleagues are kept updated on this matter.
Early Education and Childcare
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on this Government’s vital work to give every child the best start in life.
Within months of taking office we published our plan for change, a promise to improve the lives of working people and break down barriers to opportunity for people in this country. That plan set a target that a record proportion of children will start school ready to learn. Why? Because the foundations of the stronger society that we want to build must be laid down from the very beginning of children’s lives. In July, we published our “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, setting out how we will achieve that target, and the Government’s vision for the future of the early education and childcare sector.
We have heard the calls of families and providers. Education begins long before primary school, and this step change will give our children the focus and priorities that they deserve during their critical early years. We will help our youngest children by increasing the availability of childcare, improving the quality of early education and boosting support for families, building on the best of Sure Start by rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority in England. Taken together, those three approaches will make the difference to families and set up children for success in education and in life. It is yet another example of this Government working, with promises made, and promises kept.
We promised to make childcare more affordable for parents and more accessible across the country. Today we are delivering on that promise, with hundreds of thousands of parents now getting 30 hours of funded childcare each week, from when their child turns nine months until they start school. For too long, families have struggled to get childcare places that match their individual needs, and provision has been either unavailable or unaffordable. The least well-off parts of our country often have far fewer childcare places per person than the most affluent, but wide provision of high-quality childcare and early education makes a huge difference to many lives. It helps parents by giving them the flexibility to balance work and family life, and it helps businesses and the economy by helping parents return to work and growing the childcare sector and employment.
This marks a fundamental shift in how we support families right from the start: reducing costs, increasing choice, and helping parents to balance work with family. Those making full use of the offer will save, on average, around £7,500 a year. For Victoria in Gloucester, the 30 hours is helping her to balance being a single mother and an educator. She works five days a week, and the extended Government-funded childcare hours will save her around £600 a month. They also mean that she can continue her career. As Victoria says:
“This roll-out is a significant step forward in women’s rights and workplace participation.”
We are on track to reach over half a million children who will benefit from the scheme this term, already exceeding initial estimates for delivery, and the roll-out is a major step forward in our ambition to give every child the best start in life. We know that that ambition is shared by our brilliant and dedicated early years and childminder staff who work hard day in, day out to make it possible for families. Private, voluntary and independent nurseries, as well as childminders, have helped the Government to reach this important milestone, and they have grown their capacity in response to increased demand for childcare places. More providers are delivering the entitlements, with the number up by 5,800 private providers.
The sector plays a vital role in supporting families and nurturing young children, so we must ensure that its provision is available where it is most needed. That is why we are also delivering tens of thousands more childcare places via new and expanded school-based nurseries. Schools have reported that 110 nurseries from phase 1 of the programme opened this week at the start of term, and they are providing 2,500 places for families in parts of the country where provision is needed. Those nurseries join a diverse childcare market that offers families different choices to meet their needs. School-based nurseries can strengthen ties between parents and schools, and ease the transition into reception. For families with children of different ages, they offer easier drop-offs and pick-ups. School-based nurseries also play a key role in inclusion by caring for proportionally more young children with special educational needs and operating in disadvantaged areas. We have already funded around 300 new and expanded school-based nurseries, and thanks to the hard work of schools, they are on track to deliver up to 6,000 new nursery places.
We are laying the foundations of success for tens of thousands of young children, and today I am proud to tell the House that we are launching phase 2 of the school-based nurseries programme. Backed by £45 million, it will deliver 300 more new or expanded school-based nurseries. It will focus on disadvantaged areas where places are needed, and where they can make a big impact. We will build on the success of the first phase of the programme, and as before, schools can apply to establish new nurseries in partnership with private, voluntary and independent providers and childminders.
Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Cinnamon Brow Church of England primary school in Warrington. It had collaborated with an existing local private nursery to refurbish an unused mobile unit, creating a new nursery on the school site. I was so pleased and impressed by the partnership between everyone involved. It is a great example of how schools can work with established nurseries to expand childcare provision and break down barriers to opportunity.
The programme is already making a difference to families in 66 local authorities, and we are looking ahead to further grow provision for future generations. Phase 3 of the school-based nurseries programme will launch in early 2026, and will focus on meeting the long-term needs of local communities. Local authorities will be invited to develop multi-year funding proposals, in collaboration with schools and childcare providers. Backed by over £400 million, the programme will deliver on our manifesto commitment to parents of more places in school-based nurseries, and more affordable childcare for parents.
Families know that childcare needs do not stop when children start school. That is why we recently extended the holiday activities and food programme, investing over £600 million in young people’s futures. The programme provides nutritious meals and enriching activities for children from lower-income households, it helps to close the development gap between those children and their peers, and it eases the financial pressure on parents during the school holidays. The holiday activities and food programme has already reached half a million children in the past year, and during that time it has saved families over £300 each. It is another part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity, so that every child can get the best start in life.
Our “best start in life” strategy sets out how we will support this country’s children to thrive as they grow up. Alongside the £9 billion that this Government will be investing in early years, we will spend nearly £1.5 billion over the next three years to strengthen the childcare sector and revitalise family services. By expanding funded childcare and growing provision where it is needed via school-based nurseries, more children will arrive in reception ready to learn and succeed in education. The measures I have set out today reflect this Government’s deep commitment to ensuring that every family can access high-quality childcare and early education, and that all children can reach a good level of development and start school ready to learn. That will help families to save money, earn more and give children the best possible start in life. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Education Minister.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and it is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box for the very first time as shadow Education Minister.
Education is the greatest enabler of success and opportunity in this country. All Members of the House regularly visit our local schools, colleges and universities, and we see at first hand the power of a good education. Britain has some exceptionally talented young people. I look forward to working constructively with the Minister to help drive up educational standards across the country, so that those young people can get the very best start in life. Of course, when we were in government, we were ranked fourth in the world for reading, and top in the western world for maths.
It is fantastic news that, from this week, parents will benefit from 30 hours of funded childcare a week for children aged from nine months to four years. I am proud that this Conservative plan—our policy—is having its final roll-out to provide childcare for working parents, which is what they need and deserve. This Conservative policy will save parents £7,500 a year per child. I also welcome the extension of the holiday activities and food programme, after its long-term future has remained unclear for many months.
It is fantastic to see how enthusiastic the Education Minister is about the plan. I remind the House that only two years ago when we announced our childcare policies—the policies that are having their final roll-out announced now—the Secretary of State for Education herself labelled our childcare plans “broken” and a “total mess”. Only one year ago, she refused to commit to rolling out our childcare plan altogether, so I am grateful for the change of heart and that she has put party politics aside to deliver the support that working parents need. Our children should always come first.
We welcome the expansion of childcare, but the announcements mean little when the industry itself is crumbling as a result of the actions taken by this Labour Government, most notably the damaging jobs tax. Earlier this week, 27 leading organisations representing children, parents and childcare providers wrote to the Education Secretary calling for urgent action following the hike in national insurance contributions. Without such action, the sector has warned that it will not be able to provide the final roll-out of childcare, with one in 10 childcare providers saying that they will face closure within the next two years without help, leaving the sector at risk of collapse.
The Early Education and Childcare Coalition stated that the hike in national insurance has created a “perfect storm”, leaving many providers in a position where offering childcare is simply unviable. Instead of listening to the experts and organisations tasked with looking after our children, the Department’s shameful response was to label the claims as lies and “utter nonsense”. How disrespectful to parents, children and the childcare sector. What is utter nonsense is the fact that the Minister expects childcare providers to absorb the national insurance increases without the financial support needed, while keeping fees the same. We need to be clear: it is not just the sector that will be punished because of the Minister’s lack of coherent planning; hard-working parents and their children across the country will suffer too.
Will the Minister outline what engagement he has had with the sector to ensure that providers are not forced to shut their doors or reduce the hours they provide? Will he finally admit how damaging the jobs tax has been to the childcare sector, and what the impact and costs will be? Will he update the House on the impact of the jobs tax on childcare provision, and how he will continue to monitor its impact?
On the detail of the Minister’s announcement, will he clarify how the Department is identifying the most disadvantaged areas, and how he plans to make the biggest impact? Will he put parents up and down the country at ease and confirm that the Chancellor will not fill her £50 billion black hole with the education budget? While we welcome the expansion of childcare, the reality is that Labour’s decisions are making childcare less accessible and more expensive.
The Education Secretary says she is standing up for hard-working parents, but they are the ones who will suffer as a result of this Labour Government—our children will suffer, too. It is time for her to stop making broken promises and to ensure that early years provision is her No. 1 priority.
Stephen Morgan
I start by welcoming the shadow Minister to his place on the Opposition Front Bench, but it is shocking that even now the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to recognise the significance of Labour’s childcare expansion, nor can they celebrate the new school-based nurseries that make more affordable childcare places available across the country. Despite the Conservatives’ scaremongering, nine in 10 parents have one of their first choice childcare places. This Labour Government inherited a pledge without a plan but, once again, we are delivering for families, giving parents more choice and setting children up with the best start in life.
The people of this country are well aware of what happens when Conservative Members make pledges ahead of elections, such as 40 new hospitals or levelling up, and of the reality that Liz Truss crashed pensions and mortgages. What did Conservative Members do? They cheered her on. Let me spell it out to them and tell them a truth that the British public were keen to ensure that the Conservatives heard at the election last year: when they will not even take the blame for the things that they did, they certainly will not get the credit for the things that they did not do. Over 14 years, they dismantled the support for families. More than 1,000 Sure Start centres, which boosted early learning, provided healthcare and built communities, were ripped away from communities across our country. It is no wonder that the Conservatives do not want to admit that what we are rebuilding, they destroyed.
This Government are delivering on our promise of change: thousands of new nursery places, expanded childcare hours, Best Start breakfast clubs in every primary school across our country and support throughout the school holidays. Labour is delivering on our promises to parents. We are saving families thousands of pounds, giving parents work choices and improving children’s life chances. That is what the country expects and that is what I am proud this Labour Government are delivering.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement: the expansion of funded childcare hours this week; the future expansion of school-based nurseries; and confirmation of a further three years of funding for the holiday activities and food programme.
My Committee is today launching an inquiry on the early years. We will examine in detail the Government’s work in this area, looking at the sustainability of the workforce, families’ access to services across the country and the quality of outcomes for children. May I therefore ask the Minister what additional work he believes is needed to ensure that children in families who are not in work—who often have the most to gain from high-quality early years education—are not left behind by the expansion of funded hours for working families? How confident is he that the significant problems in recruitment and retention of early years practitioners will be addressed to secure the workforce needed to deliver on the Government’s commitments?
Finally, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to everyone in my constituency and across the country who has spent the past six weeks running holiday activities and food programmes? I know they are utterly exhausted this week, but they should know that their hard work has helped to tackle poverty and disadvantage, and to provide vital opportunities that keep children and young people safe and help them to thrive.
Stephen Morgan
The Chair of the Select Committee is a real champion for maintained nurseries across the country, and I know that she shares the Government’s vision of ensuring that every child gets the best start in life and has the chance to succeed and thrive. As she knows, we set out our vision for early education in our landmark strategy in July. I look forward to receiving formal notice of her Committee’s inquiry and to working with her and the Committee in a constructive manner, putting the needs of children and young people first. I pay tribute to all those who worked over the summer to deliver for children and young people. As a former playworker, I see the huge value of the HAF programme. I commend all those who work so hard over the summer holidays.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
High-quality early years education is the best possible investment we can make in our future. Whether we are serious about tackling the SEND crisis or the attainment gap, or are simply concerned to give every child the best start in life, proper investment in the early years is one of the strongest levers we have.
We all know that for far too long the previous Conservative Government neglected the early years sector, leaving a legacy of sky-high fees and childcare deserts in their wake, particularly in disadvantaged areas. We Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of more school-based nurseries, alongside the extension of funded childcare hours—but let us not forget the deep problems facing the private and voluntary sector. Without addressing the massive financial strain on those nurseries and childcare providers, we can never hope to deliver for families. Their survival is absolutely central to supporting families up and down the country to thrive.
The Government’s jobs tax, I am afraid, has only added fuel to the fire. The financial pressures of underfunded hours, the national insurance contributions rise, and inflation have left many providers on the brink. Indeed, some nurseries are already telling parents that they may be unable to sign the new contract due to financial pressures. Earlier this week, in a letter published by the Early Years Alliance, a survey of more than 800 providers found that 44% could not meet demand this September, while one in six has already cut funded places. That is coupled with a crisis in recruitment and training of staff in the sector; if the providers and the staff are not there, how can the Minister expect his expansion to deliver for parents up and down the country?
Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing the funding rates, so that they reflect the real cost of delivering high-quality early education? At the same time, will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we extend and fully fund parental rights so that families up and down the country have a real choice between whether they want to stay at home for a longer period in the early months, or go out to work full time?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming our expansion of childcare. I note again that nine in 10 parents received one of their first choice childcare places. We are determined that our childcare expansion will deliver safe, quality care for children. I know that the whole House agrees that the safety and wellbeing of children is of paramount importance. That is why alongside this expansion, which will support hard-working families, we are increasing the frequency of Ofsted inspections and enhancing recruitment checks to prevent unsuitable individuals from working with children, alongside new whistleblowing requirements. The strengthened safeguarding requirements have been added to the statutory framework from this month, giving parents greater confidence that as we expand childcare access, it will be of high quality.
The hon. Lady makes a number of points about the challenges faced by the sector. The number of people working in the sector has increased by 18,000, and as I mentioned in my statement, there are now 5,800 new private providers delivering the entitlement. We will review funding distribution later in this academic year. I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the hon. Lady on these issues, as we continue to increase access to high-quality education across our country. I look forward to meeting her in due course.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the impact of this policy on equality. He will know that this Monday was Mums’ Equal Pay Day. Mums earn 33% less than dads, so from 1 September, mums in this country basically work for free. Affordable childcare is critical to closing that gap. As new organisation Growth Spurt points out, a third of women who are not in work at the moment say that it is caring responsibilities that stop them from working. Will the Minister meet me and Growth Spurt to look at how we can get jobcentres, which do not routinely tell parents about tax-free childcare and the funded hours process, to help in this respect, so that together we can end the motherhood penalty?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is a real champion for mothers, and I commend her for all her hard work in this place over the years. In our “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, published in July, we set out that we plan to make the process simpler for parents, and we will be working across Government to ensure that issues are addressed so that all children are able to access the entitlement offer. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss these issues further.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
There were five major expansions of early years education and childcare entitlement under the last Government; what the Minister has announced today would have been our sixth. But since we formed this policy, the new Government have made a massive increase in the tax on jobs. When will Ministers next publish their assessment of the economics of running a nursery and of how they ensure that there will continue to be adequate supply of high-quality places, in places like Alton, Petersfield and Horndean?
Stephen Morgan
As I mentioned earlier, we inherited a pledge without a plan. I commend the hard work of early years providers and local authorities to deliver this key milestone for working families across the country this week. This year alone, we plan to provide over £8 billion for early years entitlement, rising to £9 billion next year. We announced the largest ever increase in the early years pupil premium, and a £75 million early years expansion grant has delivered support to the sector to increase the places and workforce that was needed. On top of that, we will review funding rates during the course of the next academic year.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Listening to the Conservative Front Bench spokesperson, one would think that everything was fine and rosy in education before the previous election, and that everything would have been fine if only the Conservatives had been given one more chance. Compare and contrast that with what we have delivered in our first year in Government: 30 hours of free childcare, actually funded; free breakfast clubs; cheaper school uniforms on the way; best start family hubs; and of course—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Sewards, do you have an actual question? If so, go for it!
Mark Sewards
Will the Minister join me in encouraging parents in my constituency of Leeds South West and Morley to take advantage of everything this Government have done to make the lives of parents and children easier?
Stephen Morgan
Well, I thank my hon. Friend for that very good question! It was a real privilege to visit his constituency and to see the brilliant work that childcare providers are doing in his patch, ensuring that every child gets the best start in life. He is a real voice on these issues, and will be working closely with me and the team to deliver further change for our country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
After that tough question, may I ask an easy one? Can the Minister explain to the House what the funding level is for the new places, and in particular whether it fully compensates for an average £18,000 increase in the bills that nurseries have to face as a result in the rise in national insurance contributions?
Stephen Morgan
As I mentioned earlier, £8 billion will be spent on the entitlement offer this year, increasing to £9 billion next year. The core funding rates do include forecasts around earnings, inflation and increases to the national living wage, but as I mentioned, we will review the funding distribution in due course and will consult on that formally.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. As schools and early years providers start the new term across Southampton this week, we have two new nurseries—at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school—which will add to that provision thanks to the investment of this Labour Government. That is going to make an enormous difference to families in an area where one in four children are growing up in low-income families. Will the Minister join me in thanking everyone working across all Southampton early years settings to give children the best start in life, and in urging parents to ensure that they take this support and all the other support that has been mentioned that is also being delivered by this Government?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend from along the south coast for his question. I know that Portsmouth football club are very much looking forward to playing Southampton this season. We promised to make childcare more affordable and we are delivering on that. I pay tribute to him and the work that he did in local government, and is now doing in this place, to ensure that childcare is more affordable and accessible for children in his constituency.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to and recognition of the importance of early years provision, and the support for school-based nurseries, like the new Little Thinkers at Kings Ash academy and the nursery at Furzeham primary school. However, like others, I am deeply concerned about recruitment in the sector. Daisy and Rainbow Childcare said to me this morning:
“Our biggest difficulty is managing the drop off in funding as the child gets older, while negotiating a 37% increase in ENICs, ongoing increases in minimum wages and a rate for three and four-year-olds that has never kept pace. Is it any wonder that practitioners are voting with their feet and leaving the sector to take their skills elsewhere? We’ve been advertising for a qualified practitioner now for three months with zero applications.”
Will the Minister explain what the Government are going to do to ensure that recruitment in the sector is maintained?
Stephen Morgan
The early years workforce is at the heart of our Government’s mission to give every child the best start in life. I mentioned earlier that we have seen an uplift in the number of people working in the sector by 18,000 this year. Our best start in life strategy set out a range of measures that we will take to encourage more people to work in the sector. I am proud that we have the “Do Something Big” campaign—a real effort to increase the number of people working in the sector—which is making a real difference across our country.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Back in the early 2000s, I worked for Labour’s incredible Sure Start children’s centres in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. With Labour back in office, we have the roll-out of breakfast clubs at Greenways and Milton primary academies, a new school-based nursery at Smallthorne, extended family hubs and extended funded places. Does the Minister agree that it is only with a Labour Government that families really get on and that young people get the best start in life?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend has just reminded us of the value of voting Labour at the last election, and why it is so important to have people like him speaking up for working families across the country. As he mentioned, the childcare entitlement, the investment in free breakfast clubs and making more children eligible for free school meals can make a real difference and help to ensure that every child gets the best start in life.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Today is my youngest child’s first day at school, so may I put on record my thanks to Chearsley and Haddenham Under Fives for providing exceptional early years education to both my sons, Charlie and Rupert, over recent decades? I mean years—it feels like decades!
There is much to genuinely welcome from the expansion of the childcare revolution that the Minister has outlined today, which was started by the previous Government. However, coalface reports from providers like the Big Top Nursery, which has sites in Waddesdon and Berryfields in my constituency, say that Government funding only just covers or does not quite cover the full cost of them providing the exceptional care and education that they do. The double whammy of the national insurance jobs tax increase makes that all the more difficult, so may I urge the Minister, who has met me before to discuss this subject, to really look at the true cost of providing exceptional education to children in Mid Buckinghamshire, and make the case to the Treasury that the funding needs to be higher?
Stephen Morgan
I wish the hon. Gentleman’s children good luck as they start school this week. As I mentioned earlier, in this financial year alone we plan to provide more than £8 billion for early years entitlement—an increase of more than 30% compared with the last financial year. We have also announced the largest increase in the early years pupil premium since its introduction, which is a significant boost, and investment in targeted support for the most disadvantaged in our communities. As I mentioned earlier, we will review funding rates in due course, and I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss these issues.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
While the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is off in America encouraging them to ruin the livelihoods of families in Bishop Auckland, I am really pleased that this Government are saving my constituents thousands of pounds in childcare, but this is not just about childcare. We know that the ages of nought to five are the most important in deciding a person’s outcomes later in life, which includes the interventions in the Best Start family hubs. The previous Government closed 13 Sure Start centres in my constituency; this Government are making a good start, but we will still only really have one hub. Will the Minister meet me to discuss some of our goals locally to open a couple more centres and see how we can support that best start for children in our area?
Stephen Morgan
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The 1,000 Best Start family hubs that we have been rolling out across the country will make a huge difference, ensuring that every child gets the best start in life, alongside the parent hub that we launched earlier this week, which will provide practical support to parents on breastfeeding, access to childcare and other issues. I note that no Reform Members are in the House today, and I know the public will note that too.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Maintained nurseries such as Chichester nursery school provide bespoke support for children, especially those with special educational needs and disabilities, but less than 400 maintained nurseries remain open. Will he outline what steps he is taking to ensure long-term financial stability for those nurseries so that they can keep the lights on and continue supporting the children they care for in their critical early years?
Stephen Morgan
We aim to ensure that every child with developmental differences and special educational needs is supported at the start of their life. The hon. Lady will know that we will publish a White Paper on those issues later this year. I commend the work of maintained nurseries; they provide a unique role in communities across the country, and I hope they have a bright future ahead of them in the light of the ambitions we set out in the “best start in life” strategy in July.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all the work he has done in bringing us so far, so quickly. I have three school nurseries opening in my constituency this year, which will mean dozens of families and scores of children being given the very best start. Can he advise me on how best I can remind those parents that while we hear platitudes from Opposition parties, they have either voted against or failed to support all the measures we are taking to fund this provision? The Minister mentioned a plan without a pledge; it is this Government who are delivering on a plan for that pledge.
Stephen Morgan
I can tell from my hon. Friend’s question how passionate he is about these issues. This Government want to break down the barriers to opportunity to ensure that every child succeeds and thrives. I have already set out a number of measures that we are undertaking to deliver that, and I really look forward to working with him to ensure that every child in his constituency gets the best start in life, whatever their background.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the positive step towards providing affordable childcare. Coppice Valley primary school in my constituency is part of phase 1 of the scheme that the Minister outlined. However, it worries me that what he has outlined might come at the expense of private and voluntary sector providers, which deliver the majority of early years places. The new early years funding contract is putting huge strain on such providers, which are having to pass the unaffordable costs on to parents. The Minister has said that there will be a review of the funding in due course, but can he give us some more specific dates and timelines? Nurseries and parents cannot afford this issue in the meantime.
Stephen Morgan
It is really important that early years education is delivered in a way that is fair and affordable for parents. As a key part of the strategy we published earlier this year, I am very pleased that there are schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that will deliver the school-based nursery programme. As I mentioned in my statement, I visited one in Warrington last week that was a really good partnership between the school and a private provider. I really encourage him to look at that model to see how that could work in his constituency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that we are finishing this statement at 1.30 pm. Can we keep questions very succinct?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
This September, Poppleton Road primary school will be opening its nursery for the little people of York, lifting families out of poverty and giving them the best start. Will the Minister say how he will evaluate this programme? It is really important that we are able to prove the case that the investment in early years makes a difference to people’s life chances.
Stephen Morgan
We will in due course set out more details on how we will evaluate the programme, but we have already learned lessons from the first phase on how we want to receive and evaluate applications. I really encourage the hon. Member to meet me to look at the detail, and I am very happy to discuss these issues further.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The work I did this year with Mandu Reid, the former leader of the Women’s Equality party, found a continuing crisis among the providers of childcare. Our call was for broader investment in pay, conditions and training, to mitigate national insurance contribution burdens and to take real action on morale. How will the £45 million announced today really help those existing childcare workers who are right on the verge of leaving the sector?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the valuable role that childminders play in the childcare we are delivering across our country. We have seen the number of childminders halve in recent years, which is why we are investing in their workforce. They are key to our plan for change, and we are committed to working with the sector to deliver the changes that we set out at the election.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I think the whole House can welcome the investment that has been announced today. We know that going through early education makes young people more ready for school, and closing the school readiness gap also closes the attainment gap later on in education settings. When I visit primary schools across Stoke-on-Trent Central, the one thing they tell me is that they are bursting at the seams—they are full. Will the Minister set out what conversations he has had, either inside the Department or between his Department and the Treasury, about identifying the capital funding necessary to ensure that schools have the high-quality physical spaces in which these nurseries will be based?
Stephen Morgan
I know my hon. Friend is a real champion for encouraging children to learn and to engage in their local community, and I have met him to discuss the work we are doing on literacy, and I am very happy to take away the points he raises. We are investing in the school-based nursery programme and in school capital funding. If he has particular examples that he wants me to follow up on in the Department, I am very happy to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I visited a nursery in Staines in my constituency, and the head there reported to me that, because of the charging regime and what they can and cannot charge for, every Saturday morning she ends up doing many hours of work on education, health and care plans, for which she cannot pass on the cost. Does the Minister recognise that phenomenon? If so, is it widespread?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Member makes a number of points with regard to charging. It is worth saying that we updated the statutory guidance on Government-funded entitlement so that it gives additional information to parents on what they can and cannot be charged for. That is about bringing transparency to the system so that parents can access more information on what they can and cannot expect, and it confirms the ruling from the High Court judgment earlier this year on what providers can and cannot charge for. I mentioned earlier that we are reviewing the broken SEND system that we inherited from the Conservatives. We are getting on and delivering a system that is fairer and ensures that confidence and trust is rebuilt with parents.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement today. Will he say a little more about the wide range of potential benefits to families, to children, in terms of their educational development, and to the wider economy as a result of helping parents to get back to work?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is a real champion on these issues in his constituency. What we are announcing today will give more choice and convenience to parents, helping to cut the double drop-off and making daily life easier for them. More families will save money with funded childcare worth up to £7,500 a year, and more children will start school ready to learn, with high-quality early years provision in their communities.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for early education and childcare, I speak frequently to representatives of the private and voluntary childcare sector, who tell me that they are in crisis. Staffing shortages and an unsustainable funding model mean that they do not know how they will deliver the very laudable aims outlined in the Government’s statement. Does the Minister understand that those aims are unachievable without the support of the private and voluntary sector? Will he agree to attend a meeting of our APPG to hear directly from key voices in the sector?
Stephen Morgan
I know that the hon. Member will have listened closely to my statement. I commend the hard work of the sector across the country in delivering the milestone that we have met today—an increase in those providing the entitlement offer by 5,800 and an uplift in the workforce of 18,000. We will be spending £9 billion on early education next year, and I am really keen to continue my work with the sector to bring about the change that people voted for at the election last year.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a mother who at one point had three children under four and had to take time out of the workplace, I welcome the great strides made by this Labour Government to support parents and children. In Scotland, parents have access to 1,140 funded hours, but for too many parents—particularly those who want to work in the hospitality, retail and care sectors—that just does not work, due to the inflexible nature of those hours. Will the Minister commit to learning the lessons from Scotland and consider flexible hours going forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that a lot of people want to get in. Please keep your questions short.
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Of course, these issues are devolved, but I look forward to hearing her thoughts and views on them. I encourage her to write to me, and I can certainly raise her points with the relevant teams across the Department and across Government.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I know that Ministers are probably sick of hearing about national insurance increases and my repeated calls for business rates exemptions, as they have in Scotland. However, the strain of costs is leading to practices that are affecting families—for example, a nursery chain in my constituency that has numerous branches only allows families to take their funded hours in the afternoons, forcing them to pay for the mornings that they actually need. Those families are now worse off than when they had fewer hours. What is the Minister going to do to help such families?
Stephen Morgan
I have mentioned the investment that we are putting into early education—£8 billion this year and £9 billion next year. We have announced the largest ever increase in the early years pupil premium, and case studies from across the country are demonstrating the difference that this programme is making. However, as I mentioned, we want to make the process simpler for parents and learn lessons from the past, and we will set that out in due course as part of our wider reform agenda.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I am looking forward to visiting Bloemfontein primary school in my constituency, where a new school-based nursery is about to open. Can the Minister outline what the measures announced today will mean for hard-working parents in North Durham who are trying to juggle work and family life?
Stephen Morgan
As I mentioned earlier, there will be more choice and convenience for parents, helping to cut the double drop-off at school and making daily life easier. More families will save money through funded childcare worth up to £7,500 a year, and more children will start school ready to learn. It is a huge programme of work that I know will make a huge difference in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I wish to declare that I have two young children under the age of four. While the expansion of free childcare is welcome news for parents in England, does the Minister recognise that families in Wales are being left at a serious disadvantage because his colleagues in Cardiff Bay have refused to match that offer, leaving Welsh families with the least generous childcare provision in Britain? Will he join me in urging the Welsh Labour Government to stop holding Welsh families back, and to commit instead to delivering 30 hours of Government-funded childcare from nine months to four years old, which is something the Welsh Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for?
Stephen Morgan
As the hon. Member will know, these are devolved matters and it would therefore be appropriate for him to put his question to Wales Office colleagues. We are a Government who are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and we will be setting out a UK-wide child poverty strategy later this year, to ensure that every child gets the best start in life.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
Our amazing schools play a central role in giving every child the best possible start in life. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Mrs Toner and her entire team at the Good Shepherd Catholic primary academy on their recent and incredibly well-deserved outstanding Ofsted report?
Stephen Morgan
That is fantastic news to hear. My hon. Friend regularly engages with schools and nurseries across his constituency to make sure he is aware of the issues and challenges they are facing, and he works really closely with those schools and nurseries to ensure that we bring about the change that people voted for last July.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Nursery fees are crippling, running to thousands of pounds per child per month after the expansion of funded hours. Parents are making reproductive choices solely on the basis of the cost of childcare—is it any wonder that the total fertility rate in this country has plummeted? Does the Minister consider this to be “job done”, or will he commit to radically reducing the cost of childcare?
Stephen Morgan
This is absolutely not “job done”—it is the start of the next journey of change, to make sure that every child gets the best start in life. We want to make life easier for parents across the country. The things I am announcing today will make a difference, but there is more for this Government to do.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I welcome this Government’s commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity, as well as their investment in Fairchildes and Monks Orchard primary schools in my constituency so that they can expand their nursery provision. Can the Minister outline the role that school-based nurseries play in Labour’s Best Start strategy, and will he join me in urging parents in Croydon East to visit beststartinlife.gov.uk to see the support that is available to them thanks to this Labour Government?
Stephen Morgan
I know that my hon. Friend is really passionate about these issues and wanting to make life so much easier for families in her constituency. School-based nurseries will help drive quality in early education and ensure good-quality access for parents. I mentioned the double drop-off that many parents face; accessing a school-based nursery and then dropping off their older child at primary school is a much simpler and more convenient approach. I am very happy to follow up on my hon. Friend’s points to ensure that this scheme is a success in her constituency.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with my constituents John and Katie, who are running a campaign to make our nurseries safer following the tragic death of their daughter Gigi. A key part of that campaign is introducing safer sleeping guidance in our nurseries, and I understand that the Government are considering plans to update the early years framework on that. Can the Minister give me an idea of the timeline by which those plans will come before Parliament? It is vital that we make our nurseries safer with that safe sleeping guidance.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his engagement on these extremely important issues. I pay tribute to the family he represents. I have met with them personally to understand the changes they are keen to see. The safety of our youngest children is of the utmost importance to my Department. I am keen to continue to engage with the hon. Member as we hear the family’s concerns and bring about the change that they expect.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I was delighted to hear recently from headteacher Mrs Solomon and school legend Lynne Purcell, who are excited about rolling out their school-based nursery this week and the difference it will make to communities across Telford. I have also spoken to Mrs McQuiggin and school business manager Sarah Nicholls at Lawley primary school, which serves Telford, about the difference that their breakfast club is making to parents and children. Minister, when can we have some more in Telford?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend likes to lobby me on these issues, and I pay tribute to his hard work in delivering for his constituency. I also thank those who work in nurseries and schools across his constituency, who we have worked really hard to rebuild the relationship with after the failures of the previous Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his very positive statement. He works very closely with the Minister in Northern Ireland, who announced back in May a package of measures worth some £55 million for the same purpose. The uptake has been huge, and has demonstrated the need for working families to receive help and for children to have support. However, more grandparents are having to work later in life, which means that childcare is at a premium. Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss that problem with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to share ideas and help all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to work together?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Member will know that I have prioritised getting to know the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland in order to discuss these issues, and I am really pleased that the Northern Ireland Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), is sat next to me. I will continue to engage with the Government in Northern Ireland on the issues of workforce and sufficiency, and where we can, I am very keen to support the community in dealing with the challenges they face.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The latest figures show that Dartford has seen the second largest rise in families with children of any area in the country, so my constituents will hugely welcome the additional free childcare hours and the new school nurseries that will result from this week’s announcement. Does the Minister agree that not only will these changes give Dartford children the best start in life, they will help Dartford parents get into and sustain work?
Stephen Morgan
Today’s milestone moment is delivering real change for families across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are really pleased by the milestone we have met today, but there is much more to come to make sure we break down the barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of the country.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
“Paw Patrol” lunchbox in hand, my son Robin started at a new preschool yesterday, and I can tell the House that I am so proud of him. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the staff at York’s preschools and nurseries for their work in expanding free childcare?
Stephen Morgan
As a relatively new dad, my hon. Friend has been a real champion on these issues in this House, and it was a real pleasure to meet him earlier this year to discuss some of the issues he faces. I pay tribute to those who work in the early years sector in his constituency—they are working day in, day out to ensure every child gets the best start in life.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement that this Government are again expanding school-based nurseries. That programme is already benefiting my constituents with the expansion of Uplands school nursery in Sandhurst. This summer, I also had the real pleasure of visiting Horseshoe Lake in Sandhurst to meet children trying out sailing and paddleboarding through the holiday activities and food programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £600 million expansion of that programme demonstrates this Government’s commitment to every child?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for visiting the HAF programme in his constituency, where he saw first-hand what a brilliant scheme it is, providing healthy meals, enriching activities and Government-funded childcare places for children from low-income families. That is exactly what this Labour Government want to invest in, and we are.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the statement. Families in Dudley are now benefiting from 30 hours of Government-funded childcare, including new places in school-based nurseries such as at Beechwood Church of England primary school in St Thomas’s, one of the most deprived wards in the borough. Can the Minister set out how this expansion, alongside more support for parents and investment in early years staff, will help children to start school ready to learn and succeed in the future?
Stephen Morgan
It was a real privilege to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see at first hand the hard work she is undertaking with school staff and nursery settings. She is absolutely right: our investment in early years will make a huge difference to children’s lives by allowing them to socialise and to develop the skills they need to succeed in life, as well as delivering real benefits for parents across the country, saving them on average £7,500 a year.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
In just one year, up to 2,970 more children will receive free school meals in Exeter. We have received capital investment for Newtown and St Gabriel’s primary schools. Three primary schools in my constituency—Whipton Barton junior and infants and St Sidwell’s—are in the roll-out of breakfast clubs. This week, we have a new school-based nursery at Exwick Heights primary school. Can the Minister set out how that all helps us to achieve our aim to reduce child poverty in Exeter and across the country?
Stephen Morgan
This Government have a clear mission to break down the barriers to opportunity and to remove the stain of child poverty on our society. That is why I was so pleased to announce in the House earlier this year that the down payment on the child poverty strategy will lift 100,000 children out of poverty and ensure that half a million more children can access free school meals from September next year.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Children and parents at Allenby primary school in my constituency of Ealing Southall are already set to benefit from a newly modernised and expanded nursery as a result of funding from this Labour Government. Can I pass on directly to the Minister the thanks of Mr Hickman, the headteacher, who said that the investment is a fantastic opportunity that the local community is truly grateful for? Does the Minister agree that today’s announcement of 300 more nurseries in schools like Allenby will save thousands of families money on childcare and help them to manage the challenging job of parenting and working?
Stephen Morgan
I thank Mr Hickman for that feedback. We are absolutely committed to delivering on our commitment to create tens of thousands more places through new and expanded school-based nurseries, backed by more than £400 million of investment. That will help more families access Government-funded childcare and ensure that every child gets the best start in life.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Over the summer, thanks to this Labour Government, empty classrooms and underutilised spaces have been turned into high-quality, school-based nursery provision at Matchborough first school in Redditch in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s focus on the early years can and will make the biggest difference to children’s lives in my constituency?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Phase 2 of the school-based nursery programme, with a stronger focus on supporting families in disadvantaged areas, will make a huge difference. From 22 September this year, schools can apply for up to £150,000 from a £45 million fund, enabling at least another 300 school-based nurseries across the country.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I recently visited Leaps and Bounds nursery in Winton, and it was clear that the women who work there strive to create a safe and enriching environment for all the young people, so that they are ready to start school when they go. Can the Minister tell me how this Labour Government are making early years education—this critical time in a young person’s life—more accessible and affordable for parents in Bournemouth West?
Stephen Morgan
My sister has worked in the early years sector for 30 years, and the early years workforce are at the heart of our Government’s plan for change to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible for families. This week, a key milestone has been met, but there is more to do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make sure that every child, whatever their background, can succeed and thrive through good-quality early education.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is so gratifying to see the school-based nursery programme going from an idea to a reality. I place on record an appreciation of the positive role that the trade union movement, and in particular the GMB, has played in nurturing that idea in response to the problem of falling rolls. Will the Minister please set out a bit more information for schools in my constituency that may wish to apply for phase 2 funding on the steps they should take next?
Stephen Morgan
I thank all those who have contributed to the key milestone that has been met today. My hon. Friend mentioned the valuable role of trade unions, and I agree with him. Today, we are launching phase 2 of the school-based nurseries programme, with a stronger focus on supporting families in disadvantaged areas. The application window for schools to apply will open on 22 September, and I know he will be keen to encourage schools in his constituency to apply for this exciting opportunity.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Sure Start was one of the proudest legacies of the last Labour Government. We must be grateful to Tessa Jowell for her contribution in making that happen. I am pleased that we are recapturing the spirit of Sure Start through such initiatives as free breakfast clubs, including at Morley primary school in my constituency. Can the Minister say a little more about what today’s announcement will mean for parents and children in Mid Derbyshire?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is right to flag the significance of free breakfast clubs in primary schools, which we are rolling out across every primary school in the country. That is on top of what we have delivered today with our funded childcare, with 30 hours of support each week. That will save parents on average £7,500 a year. We are a Government who take seriously support for children and families across the country, easing some of the pressures they face, but also ensuring that every child gets the best start in life.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am so glad to see the extension of the holiday activities and food programme. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of Jo Haydon and all the staff and volunteers at the 4 Community Trust in Hateley Heath—one of the areas of highest child poverty in my constituency—and their delivery of the HAF programme this year?
Stephen Morgan
I pay tribute to all those who have helped deliver the holiday activities and food programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We have had 5 million days delivered this year alone. That is a huge investment in our children’s futures and making sure they have access to good-quality enrichment activities, hot food and opportunities that they might not ordinarily get at school or at home.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I attended the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on play this week, chaired ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), and heard more about the importance of play. I am glad that is referenced several times in the Government’s excellent strategy. Have the Government looked at the approach taken by Finland in ensuring that play forms a central part of early education—specifically play facilitated by educational professionals aimed at preparing children for learning?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend will know that our landmark strategy sets out our first steps towards delivering a decade of national renewal and strengthening family services. We are always keen to learn from other countries, because in order to achieve our ambitions as a country, we need to learn from elsewhere. He will know the value I place, as a former playworker, on play provision, and I am happy to discuss these issues further with him.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are still a national treasure to me. I thank the Minister for his important statement, which will make a huge difference to young people and families in my constituency. Over recess, I held a roundtable for parents of SEND children in Harlow. The No. 1 thing that they said would support their children was early intervention to ensure they have the best possible start in life, which will support them in schools and later in employment. Will the Minister guarantee that this early intervention—this proactive approach to childcare and education—will be a golden thread that runs through this Labour Government?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his proactivity in bringing parents together to hear their thoughts and views. We are a Government who are listening to what parents tell us, and we want to act to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. He is absolutely right that investing in early education and supporting early intervention around any additional needs that children have are vital in ensuring that every child gets the best possible outcomes and life chances. I know that he will continue to work with us to make sure that happens in his constituency and across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes the statement. I thank the Minister and Members for helping each other out and keeping questions and answers succinct.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Clive Lewis on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct, to rectify a failure to declare.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when making spoken contributions on 8 March 2023, 14 November 2023 and 16 June 2025. When I made these contributions, I inadvertently failed to declare an interest: I am the chair of the British Caribbean Association. This was a breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this error.
I would also like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling written parliamentary questions to the Home Office on 1 February 2024 and 5 March 2025, and when tabling a written question to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 17 July 2024. When I tabled these questions, I inadvertently failed to declare an interest: I am the chair of the British Caribbean Association. This was in breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this error.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue.
Privilege
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) has tabled a motion for debate on a matter of privilege, which Mr Speaker has agreed should take precedence today.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) There be laid before this House the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration proposed to be laid under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 concerning the steps taken by the Charity Commission to implement recommendations contained in two reports issued by the Commissioner in respect of “Miss A” and “Mr U”;
(2) The matter of the actions of the Charity Commission in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of a report before this House be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this request. The House will be delighted to know that on the first week back after a longish summer recess, the five hours allocated for this debate will not be taken up—I will only take four hours and 50 minutes. [Laughter.] No, do not worry. I know the House wants to get on to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.
The motion before the House is, I hope, clear. I believe it will command support across all parties in the House, but I think it is important to put on the record why it has been tabled. We have too often allowed the privileges of this House and our parliamentary process to be slightly nibbled and chipped away at, and sometimes we have been reluctant to defend robustly those privileges, which are important for Parliament to function as our constituents expect. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who chairs both the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges, is alongside me this afternoon.
The House of Commons’ role used to be described as the “grand inquest of the nation”. It meant that one of our great functions was to consider and debate everything that we thought mattered. In a famous case, one of the Law Lords recognised the key importance of
“the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors, with access to all relevant information”.
This is a case about the ability of the House to receive information, which the House has always taken very seriously. “Erskine May” has an entire section on obstructing witnesses and others. It states boldly:
“Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.”
The circumstances here are slightly different, because this is about a prospective case against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I have tabled the motion for two reasons, which I shall set out briefly, but they are explained in the motion itself.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, also known as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, is technically an officer of the House—a Crown appointment appointed by resolution of the House. They have a duty to respond to complaints from all our constituents, where there is validity in doing so, in coming to reports, making observations and suggestions, and submitting those reports to Parliament.
As referenced in the motion, there is the case of “Miss A” and “Mr U”. I have no idea who Miss A and Mr U are, and I have no idea what complaints about the Charity Commission were set out before the commissioner, but the Charity Commission has clearly taken umbrage or offence at what the PHSO has been seeking to do. The Charity Commission is bringing legal proceedings deliberately to prevent the laying of two reports before this House. That completely undermines the linkage between the ombudsman and this place, and, as I said at the start, it undermines our opportunity and decisions to look at any information that we deem to be of importance, or that matters to us, in order to allow us to advance policy.
The motion is a very simple one. If approved, it will compel the commissioner to lay before the House the reports that they have undertaken with regard to the complaints of Miss A and Mr U. I have tabled the motion as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is responsible for the PHSO. We will look at those reports and advise accordingly, if necessary. I make no prior judgment of whether the PHSO or the Charity Commission has got it right in this instance, because we have not seen the reports. However, it fundamentally undermines the rights and privileges of this place, and all of us as Members, when we are prevented from seeing reports that have been produced following due diligence and proper investigation and inquiry by a statutory body and the ombudsman, who is a servant of the House. Because there is concern, which I share, that the Charity Commission has acted perversely in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of the reports, the second part of the motion seeks to refer that action to the Committee of Privileges so that it can take a look.
In the general scheme of things, this may seem a very small element of parliamentary life, but the courts have hitherto always taken the standpoint that Parliament can and should see what it wants and needs to see, and that the courts should take no role in interfering with or obstructing that channel of communication. We are all familiar with Mr Speaker giving advice from the Chair about the sub judice rule, for example, but it does not mean that we cannot talk about things. We do so knowing full well that privilege entails both rights and responsibilities.
I hope the House is with us on this matter, which is important. It is time for us to robustly reassert our rights under the idea of privilege and having access to information. I remain to be convinced that the Charity Commission has acted advisedly in bringing the action. Even yesterday, the commission tried to put pressure on me to withdraw the motion, believing still that it is in the right. I decided not to do so, and I think it is an abuse of the commission to ask us to do that.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will undertake an inquiry on arm’s length bodies, of which the commission is part, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have privately raised with me concerns about decisions that the commission is taking. It is appearing to do so in a slightly abstract or perverse way, without any degree of accountability. That matter is separate from this motion, but it is important for all our arm’s length bodies, and particularly the Charity Commission, to understand that this House will not be bullied by arm’s length bodies seeking recourse to the courts to stop us doing our job properly, efficiently and professionally on behalf of all our constituents.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I thank him for being so generous in leaving so much time for others to speak. We absolutely support the motion that he has brought before the House. We are deeply concerned that anyone, least of all a public body, should be seeking to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration from laying reports before this House. As my hon. Friend has set out with admirable clarity, we have a long-standing and absolute right to be able to gather and examine relevant information for our inquiries and our work. The linkage between the ombudsman and the House is well-established and long-standing, and nothing should impede it. Legal proceedings should not be seeking to prevent the laying of a report before this House, so we strongly support that this House should reassert its ancient right to request and require papers and evidence.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this matter, as well as for speaking so powerfully and so concisely on the issue, and to Mr Speaker for granting a debate on this important principle. The Government recognise and value the critical role that Parliament plays in scrutinising our work. Should the House agree to the motion, the Government will await the work of the Committee of Privileges with interest.
Question put and agreed to.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15 October 2024 (House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 2, 3, 8, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Question agreed to.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 336 / Noes: 77 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 73 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 338 / Noes: 74 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 7 and 9.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
This House sent the second Chamber a Bill that had a simple and direct objective outlined in this Government’s manifesto, but I have to report to the House that something very strange has happened since then. People said that the Conservatives were in some sort of hibernation since the general election, but it would appear they have found an issue that has awakened them from their slumber. On the order of their Whips, some hundreds of Conservative politicians, finally mustering the strength to make their mark in Parliament and ready to take action for what the 2025 Conservative party believes in, have found their crusade. What is it? Keeping hereditary Lords in the jobs they accessed by accident of birth. I have to say that it is a tale as old as time—the Tories blocking progress. Who knew it?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
This is an opportune moment for me to mention my summer reading list and the first Labour Government in 1924. Even at that time, there was talk about reform of the House of Lords, so this is very much a tale as old as time itself. In fact, looking back in historical Hansard, it goes much further back than 1924, so is it not good that this Labour Government are finally getting on with dealing with it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether we go back to 1924 or even further back—and I will during my speech—we find Conservatives in this House protecting their friends born into positions of power. This Bill will finally remove such an archaic right. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —he is overseas at the moment, I understand—wants to send people, certainly in Wales, back down the coalmines, the Leader of the Opposition is stuck in the politics of the past.
Before I turn to the amendments sent back from the other place, I want to draw attention to comments made by the noble Lord Strathclyde. He said of this Bill that
“inevitably, there will be repercussions. They”—
the Government—
“are storing up huge problems for themselves.”
The Conservatives have not only complained that the Government are removing hereditary peers while offering “nothing in return”; more sinisterly, they have threatened to use delaying tactics on this Government’s agenda. We only have to look at their behaviour in debates in the upper House, to see that they have been trying to hold the Government hostage on the Football Governance Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Renters’ Rights Bill—all to protect the hereditary principle. We know that the Conservative party is in no fit state to take action on very much, but where is their energy being directed at present? It is being directed at the self-preservation of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. That is unacceptable and, frankly, it deserves to be highlighted.
As I say, the Bill has returned to the House amended by the other place. Most of the amendments serve to undermine the core purpose of the Bill, or go well beyond the Bill’s intended remit. Lords amendment 1 has to be read with its consequential amendment—Lords amendment 8. It seeks to end the system of hereditary peer by-elections while retaining the current cohort of hereditary peers. The Government cannot endorse those amendments, which fundamentally undermine the core purpose of the Bill. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring about an immediate reform by removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Lords amendment 1 would allow existing hereditary peers, the youngest of whom is 39, to remain in the other place for decades to come. That therefore blocks an immediate reform.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the reason hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords was the deal done in 1999. The promise made by the then Labour Government was that hereditaries would remain until the House of Lords was properly reformed. The Minister is aware that he is removing the hereditaries but giving no assurance about when full reform of the House of Lords will take place. What assurance can he give this Chamber about when the Government will make proper proposals to reform the upper Chamber?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the Leader of the House of Lords has set out in the other place, immediately this Bill is on the statute book a Select Committee will be created to look at those issues of retirement and participation. The hon. Gentleman is talking about politics as they stood in 1999. This Government were elected on a manifesto that delivered 411 MPs in 2024, and this Government are following that manifesto.
Across both this House and the other place, there has been broad consensus that the hereditary route to the House of Lords should end. I also make it clear, as Ministers have from this Dispatch Box and Labour peers have in the other place, that this is not a judgment on individuals. It is not a judgment on the work and contribution of individual hereditary peers; it is a judgment on the principle. Let me also say that there is no barrier to any hereditary peers—in the case of the Conservative party, through a party list—being nominated as life peers, should the Leader of the Opposition, for example, wish to do that.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned the very long period of time that his party has been anxious for and agitating about reform of the House of Lords. Is the creation of a future Select Committee really the sum of all that anger and agitation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has said, we could have seen a full picture of a modernised, reformed and accountable House of Lords that works to deliver bicameral scrutiny, but we do not have that. The Minister is asking us to vest hope in the creation of a Select Committee, with no timeframe attached to when it would report and no promise of future legislation. Surely, he must be as disappointed and unhappy with that situation as I am.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is great to see that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that House of Lords reform is not going far enough. If he wants to talk about the 20th century and the length of time that his party was in power, I would say that it had every opportunity to bring about full reform of the House of Lords. Not only did the Conservatives bring about minimal reform, at best, but they blocked every attempt at major reform. It is difficult, therefore, to take their 2025 position seriously.
The point about the Select Committee is that we have had on the one hand accusations that the Government are acting in a party political way and, on the other, requests for the Government to do things cross-party. That is precisely what the Select Committee will do: it will give the opportunity to consider issues such as retirement age and participation. The debate in the upper House covered those matters across different parties. The Select Committee will be established within three months of Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman asked about deadlines, and I can tell him that the Committee will issue its findings by next summer.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I, for one, am perplexed. We have heard Opposition Members say that they want us to go faster and further in reforming the House of Lords, and we have heard them chuntering about the divine right of whoever and whatever in that place. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition seem to be rather confused about this, which perhaps stands as testament to the ability of the Leader of the Opposition to lead her party?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The word “confused” sums up the Opposition, whether on this Bill or any other.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not purport to speak on behalf of my party, but rather as an individual who has long had an interest in the positive role that the Lords play in revising legislation, which any elected and strongly whipped House would not be able to do. The Minister partly anticipated the point I want to make, when he mentioned the ability to appoint some of what would otherwise be outgoing hereditary peers to life peerages. That may be a way forward for people of good will to pursue, but given the quite high number of people who find themselves in quite responsible positions in the Lords, what sort of numbers does he have in mind to allow the parties that will lose a large number of hereditary peers to appoint as life peers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman always makes an individual contribution, to his great credit, not only in this debate but in others. I will not be drawn on numbers, which are always a matter for the Prime Minister and the usual channels. As in every Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition of whatever party will have the opportunity to nominate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will make a persuasive case to her about some Members of the upper House.
Sir Julian Lewis
I do not expect the Minister to be specific about numbers, but can he at least tell the House whether he accepts the principle that a considerably larger one-off tranche would be needed to cater for this unique situation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There will be the usual periods in this Parliament when there will be an opportunity, and I repeat that there is no barrier to someone who serves as a hereditary peer being appointed as a life peer.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Opposition Members seem to want lots of reassurances for the people who feel they are born to rule. Can the Minister tell me what reassurances the Government can give my constituents and young people in Kinson and West Howe that they will have equal right to be part of this legislative body?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She speaks powerfully about her constituents, and I want my constituents in Blaenavon, Pontypool and Cwmbran to be able to aspire to be Members of Parliament, including in the upper House, and that places are not reserved for people through accident of birth—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister chunters from a sedentary position. If he is in favour of the hereditary position, let him tell us, instead of hiding behind the smokescreen of pretending he is in favour of full reform. Let us hear him say from the Dispatch Box that he believes in the hereditary principle, if he does.
We have said from the outset that we wanted this Bill on the statute book before turning to the next phase of reform. Delaying this legislation means delaying the establishment of the Select Committee and delaying further reforms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned, the reality is that since we last reformed the Lords, the outside world has changed. Our Parliament should always be a place where talents are recognised and merit counts. It should never be a gallery of old boys’ networks, nor a place where titles, many of which were handed out centuries ago, hold veto power over the will of the people.
Chris Vince
Does the Minister recognise the irony that, given these issues were discussed in 1924, we are probably now discussing the hereditary peers who are the grandchildren of the hereditary peers they were talking about getting rid of 100 years ago?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is right. One would think that the 1924 debate about bloodlines and pedigree as a basis for participation would no longer have any advocates, but it appears that a number of such advocates are left, a century later.
From the Parliament Act 1911 to the House of Lords Act 1999, the history of Lords reform is littered with examples of individual Members straining every sinew and making every different argument to try to resist reform. In 1911, Lord Curzon coined the term “the ditchers”—the Unionist peers who were to fight into the last ditch over the then Parliament Bill and whose efforts have acted as an effective block on further change. Today’s ditchers all sit on the Opposition Benches—
Paul Holmes
I guarantee to the Minister that, as a council estate boy from Lewisham, I am not someone who ever thought that my bloodline would get into the House of Lords—[Interruption.] One day!
I want to challenge the Minister about the points he has made about future reform. His party has a majority of 170, and we know that it won the general election. Why is he claiming that we are trying to block reform, which is completely untrue, while the Government are so lacking in ambition and do not have the courage or political will to bring a full package of reform to the House, which the Opposition might well support? What we are asking is why he is tinkering at the edges and then attacking us for not being in favour of reform, when he has refused to bring reform in the first place.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s bloodline getting to the House of Lords, I am sure it is only a matter of time before we see that.
In terms of the antics of the Opposition, I do not know whether the Conservative parliamentary party in the Commons speaks to peers, but it should talk to them about their behaviour on the Bill and other Bills that they have blocked and blocked and blocked. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is apparently spending time to come up with credible policies—no one will believe that the Conservative party is in favour of wholesale reform of the House of Lords.
It has been more than 25 years since Parliament agreed to end the hereditary route, with a supposedly temporary arrangement to retain 92 hereditary peers. It is almost 200 years since the Great Reform Act 1832, which took away the hold of the great aristocratic families, opening up the franchise and taking their presence in electoral politics from monopoly to anomaly. Nonetheless, the hereditary principle remains in our Parliament: sometimes as symbol of tradition, sometimes as obstacle to real reform—as Conservative peers have recently demonstrated.
There is a real opportunity today for the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has protested several times about newly found passion for wholesale Lords reform—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am glad to hear that—there is the real voice of the Conservative party.
We have also therefore heard a lot of protestations that there is no attempt from the Conservative party to block this—we will see in the voting Lobby in due course whether the Conservatives actually seek to block further progress again. We talk about history and nostalgia, but this has in a real sense been used in the upper House to block Bills with a democratic mandate since last year.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
For the completeness of history, it is 115 years since the Labour party promised to abolish the House of Lords, and I think we will be waiting another 100 before it even gets close to that. The Minister is absolutely right that the public cannot stand the hereditaries—it is something they are bitterly opposed to—but they are also opposed to prime ministerial patronage. It is almost as unpopular as the House of Lords. Now, 57 new peers have gone into the House of Lords since Labour came to power, and The Guardian has reported that dozens more are set to follow. Are we just going to be replacing the old nobility with new Labour nobility?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely not, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a Member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of this House. That is entirely different from the situation of having places in the House of Lords on the basis of an accident of birth.
I should say, though, because I do not want to just criticise the Conservative party today, that I do appreciate that should the hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of “the most ancient and outdated relic” will then be awarded to the modern-day Conservative party, so I guess self-preservation is the Conservatives’ real motive. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) spoke about our majority—we will not allow the Conservative party to block this change.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the hereditary principle is so wrong, where does that leave the principle of an hereditary monarchy, which has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We have a modern constitutional monarchy that enjoys very wide popular support. It is a completely different matter. I do not think a monarch has blocked an Act of Parliament since Queen Anne in 1714, so I would say that the monarchy plays a very different role in our constitution from that of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
The Government are determined to deliver this reform to rectify this historic wrong and move us closer to a fairer, more equitable Parliament. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 1 and 8.
I do need to deal with other amendments now. Lords amendment 2 would prohibit future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of the House of Lords. I understand the strength of feeling expressed in the debate on this amendment in the other place, and I should make it clear that I am proud of the work of all Ministers across Government—I know that ministerial colleagues in the other place work incredibly hard. In this House, both Ministers and shadow Ministers are able to focus on our departmental portfolio—with the honourable exception of the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, as far as I can make out, seems to be about a third of the shadow Cabinet with his various roles. In fairness, he carries out his public duties, as ever, with great dedication. In fact, the situation that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster finds himself in is quite regular in the House of Lords, where Front Benchers cover a number of different portfolios, which they do with skill and dedication.
However, I have to say that although I understand the motive behind this amendment, it would do little to address the problem it seeks to resolve. It would not result in all current Lords Ministers receiving a salary, and would instead mean that the number of Lords Ministers would in future be reduced. Ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, which sets a maximum of 109 ministerial posts across both Houses, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which limits the number of Ministers in the House of Commons—paid or unpaid—to 95. The reality is that any meaningful change to the number of Ministers or ministerial salaries would have to amend that legislation.
It is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers in line with those legislative limits. The amendment would therefore have the effect of placing a further restriction on that prerogative power and reducing the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the best people to serve in their Government. The Bill should clearly not be used as a vehicle to address changes to those Acts, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3 would create a new form of statutory life peerage and seeks to create a two-tier peerage system that distinguishes between the honour of a peerage and membership of the House of Lords. Under this system, individuals could receive the title of a peerage but not be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister could help me out, because I feel that I might be having a dream about some strange alternative reality where the hill that the modern Conservative party is prepared to die on is giving unelected peers who are no longer peers the name and title Lord, as if that is the most important issue of the day in 2025. Can he help me—is that actually what is happening? Am I awake or not at this point?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can help the hon. Gentleman out on one issue: I can reassure him that he is most definitely awake; this is most definitely reality. Where I am afraid I will fail is in explaining the priorities on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to that.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister genuinely for giving way again; he is courteous and gentlemanly in doing so. I promise that this will be my last intervention. Could I just ask him about the difference between the problems he is discussing and what the Bill will enact, where a hereditary peer is not given membership of the House of Lords, but is still given the title and privilege of being a peer of the realm?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Quite simply, the amendment is trying to create the title as an honour without the actual membership. That is the difference. I had an exchange earlier about there being no barriers to life peerage; that is not saying no barrier to the title. The life peerage, if granted, obviously confers both the title and the participation. That is the difference between the two.
On the point about the amendment being unnecessary, as my noble Friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent stated in the other place—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Family connections exist on the Government Benches, as well. The UK already has an extensive and long-standing honours system, which recognises and promotes the outstanding contributions made by individuals the length and breadth of the country and from all sections of society.
As has been said, being appointed as a peer is an honour, but it also brings the responsibility to contribute to the work of the second Chamber. The Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement to ensure that all peers contribute to the work of the other place—an approach that has received widespread support from peers. I certainly do not think that creating another layer to that system to provide for the statutory creation of non-sitting peers is in keeping with the mood of either House. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 3.
I turn finally to an issue on which I hope there will be cross-party consensus, which is resignation by power of attorney. Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 would allow the House of Lords to set out arrangements for resignation from the other place where a peer lacks capacity, including when someone is acting under a lasting power of attorney. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, it became clear that there was considerable support to address in legislation the long-standing concern that Members who lack capacity were unable to resign from the House of Lords, and the Government have listened and acted. Following discussions with peers across the House of Lords, the Leader of the House of Lords brought forward these amendments to address the matter. What they make clear is that a notice to resign from the other place may be given and signed by a person acting on behalf of a peer who lacks capacity, providing that it is done in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.
The amendments relating to resignation would come into force on Royal Assent to ensure that families who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of a parliamentary Session to do so. It seeks to provide certainty to peers who have raised this issue. It is a solution that has received unanimous cross-party support in the other place, and I hope that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will confirm the support for that amendment.
This a short and focused Bill. It delivers on a manifesto commitment to immediately remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It is not personal, and nor is it a comment on the contribution that hereditary peers have made. The Government are grateful for their service in the other place, and I stress again that there are no bars on them returning as life peers if their party leaders wish to nominate them. However, the time has now come to deliver this immediate reform, so that we can move on to further reform of the other place, as set out in our manifesto, and deliver on what was promised in July last year. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to debate this historic piece of legislation on an historic day; my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) reminds me that it is the 1,100th anniversary of Athelstan being crowned King at Kingston, and I know there are a great many celebrations going on there today. The monarchy lives on—even if His Majesty’s Government are making changes to our ancient Parliament.
The Paymaster General accused the Conservatives of having been in hibernation, but it must be the Paymaster General who has been in hibernation, for he seems to have forgotten the fact that we are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the disastrous decisions that his Government have made—against the enormous damage that his party has done to our country in the short months it has been in power, and the worst Budget that we have seen in a very long time, which has caused 30-year borrowing to be at a higher rate than it ever was under the previous Government, or indeed the Government before. It is a truly terrible state of affairs, and economic experts say that we are heading towards an economic crash. It is already costing jobs in the constituencies of all the hon. Gentlemen across the Chamber every month. It is a serious issue—one that this Opposition called out at the Budget and will continue to call out. I hope that the Government see sense before disaster strikes.
Before I move on to the specifics of the Bill, I want to pay tribute to the quality of debate, first in this Chamber at the outset of the legislation and then the sheer quality of debate in the Lords. It reflects just how significant our upper House is to our constitution in its ability to strengthen legislation through scrutiny. I particularly want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who has done so much to hold the Government to account as they have pushed these measures through. The Paymaster General has talked about the Conservatives seeking to block legislation in the Lords. I am absolutely delighted that we have been trying to block their terrible legislation, and I am very pleased that the Lords have sent the Bill back with a number of improving amendments that speak of the decent scrutiny that is being done in the other place.
I agree with the Paymaster General at the outset that we accept the Government’s concession on powers of attorney. It is a sensible change, and I am glad that there is at least one issue on which we can find agreement. We are pleased that during the course of the debate the Labour party has made a number of significant and historic clarifications to its positions. It seems finally that the Labour party has agreed that an elected upper House would be a bad idea. I personally welcome that; I think an elected upper Chamber would totally disrupt the balance of our constitution. It would take away from the primacy of this House and often lead to constitutional deadlock. It has taken the Labour party about 100 years to reach that conclusion, but I welcome it joining the side of right.
I am also very pleased that Gordon Brown’s disastrous plans for constitutional reform, which were published during the last Parliament, have been done away with. They would have caused utter mayhem had they been pushed through by this Government, so I commend those on the Front Bench for kicking Gordon Brown’s terrible ideas into touch.
I was pleased to see that the Government have reneged on their manifesto commitment to kick out peers who are over 80. It was a terrible idea, and I am very pleased that they have seen good sense. There are a lot of excellent peers who are over 80, such as Lord Dubs and, by the end of this Parliament, Lord Blunkett, Lord Clarke, and Lord Heseltine—people who have added to the richness of the House, who bring their experience and who should not be barred on the grounds of age. I congratulate the Labour Government on having admitted their terrible mistake.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
This is a fascinating return to the ’90s—like much about the Conservative party—but I think the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has missed the fact that there was an election last year in which the Labour party clearly won a mandate to deliver the removal of hereditary peers. What may or may not have been discussed in the 1990s is for the birds. There was an election. We won that election. We said we were going to do this. Let’s get on with it.
Alex Burghart
I fully accept that the Labour party has changed its mind, but in doing so it has reneged on the deal that it struck in the late ’90s. Let us be clear about what is happening. The Labour Government are now seeking to remove a whole group of public servants who have done nothing wrong—
Alex Burghart
Sit down. Those public servants are in the Lords because the last Labour Government put them there as part of the deal that it struck on long-term constitutional change.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I obviously declare an interest as my wife is a Member of the House of Lords—and a salaried Minister, for good fortune. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recognises that the Labour party won an election but is talking about deals that go back further. Does he not realise that he risks undermining the Salisbury-Addison convention, which says that manifesto commitments should pass through the other place without hindrance? I know that the hon. Gentleman aspires to be back in government one day. Does he not recognise that by doing down that convention, he risks his own future legislative programme should the Conservatives ever get back into power in future?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will understand that this legislation is not being blocked but improved. That is what Parliament does, and that is how the process of scrutiny works. He will see very clearly that the amendments make significant improvements to the faulty legislation that his party brought forward.
Gareth Snell
I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his indulgence. He says that Lords amendment 1 makes a significant improvement to the Bill. Why, then, when it was brought forward in the other place by Lord Grocott as a private Member’s Bill and in this place by David, now Lord, Hanson, did the Conservatives block it and say that it was a terrible idea?
Alex Burghart
I do not recall us saying that it was a terrible idea. I distinctly remember many Conservative peers speaking in favour of it actually, but that is part of the joy of the independence of the upper House, which, as I will shortly explain, risks being undermined by this legislation.
What the Government are now trying to do is remove a group of public servants who have done nothing wrong and who have simply served their country and continue to do so. The reason they are being removed is very clear: the Government cannot rely on their votes. Consequently, they are attempting to take a group of opponents out of Parliament by Act of Parliament. This is simply Cromwellian. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is a second Cromwell. Cromwell was a great man—a “brave, bad man” as Clarendon said—while the Prime Minister is just a man.
I do not believe that the Government have Cromwellian intent. They are doing something clumsy and foolish, but—I mean this seriously—what they are doing will set a precedent. I do not believe it is a route that the Paymaster General would follow, but the people who come after him may be much more like Cromwell than he. [Interruption.] There is laughter from behind the Paymaster General, but I want us to think seriously about what future Parliaments might look like. If the precedent is set that political opponents can be removed by Act of Parliament, someone in the future, even if maybe not tomorrow, in two years or in 10 years, will point back to this—I guarantee it. It does not need to happen this way.
We have a group of people already in the House of Lords and already doing a job. Take Viscount Stansgate, who is an excellent Member of the House of Lords and Deputy Speaker. As I am sure hon. Members know, there are 65 hereditary peers who sit on parliamentary Committees, so this change will be enormously and unnecessarily disruptive to the working of the House. It would be much better to leave them in place and let them do their jobs.
Paul Holmes
On that point, I think of peers such as Patrick Courtown, the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who has served in the other House since 1975 in a number of ministerial capacities. That is because of where he was born, but there is a risk in seeing Members laugh about rich and privileged hereditary peers. This is not “Downton Abbey” any more, and many of these people have given their life to this Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that should the Government get their way this afternoon, there needs to be an urgent conversation about support for those hereditary peers who may suffer after losing their positions in the other House? The Minister raises his eyebrows, but many peers in that House are not stately home owners but people who have given their life and position to this Parliament, and they will need support going forward.
Alex Burghart
I am interested in my hon. Friend’s excellent point, and I hope the Minister will respond to that in his closing remarks.
What we will see is the removal of a group of public servants to make way for Labour placemen and Labour stooges—a huge act of patronage. I do not think anybody here believes that will improve scrutiny. It is just a numbers game. It is simply an attempt to give the Government a more compliant majority in the House of Lords, which they do not need. The Government will be able to get their business through the House of Lords anyway, so this is an unnecessary change that, despite the comments of the Paymaster General, belittles the contribution of the peers who already sit. It belittles their service, and it does not need to be done.
I turn to Lords amendment 2, on pay. I was interested by the Paymaster General’s response and listened closely to the detail he set out. There is an important principle here. We ask people to serve as Ministers of the Crown, and I think most of our constituents would agree that those Ministers should be paid. Members of the House of Lords are on no salary. They can collect their £361 a day if they turn up, but let us assume that one such Member is an unpaid Minister in the Home Office. They will find that on many working days they will be expected to travel—perhaps to Northern Ireland, Scotland or the north of England—and they will not be able to collect their allowance. On top of that, for taking on that important, unpaid job, they will also, for understandable reasons, have to give up their outside interests.
That means simply that many people in the House of Lords can afford to take ministerial jobs only if they are already of considerable means. I just do not think that the Paymaster General, in his heart of hearts, wants to see the perpetuation of that. If he does not agree with the Lords amendment, will he confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward comprehensive plans on that?
I will correct the Paymaster General on one small point of fact. He said that if Ministers in the House of Lords were paid, we would need to reduce the number of Ministers in the House of Lords as only a certain number of Ministers can be paid.
Alex Burghart
I will let the Paymaster General intervene if he wants to provide clarity on that technical point.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is a consequence of the interaction between the existing statute and this statute. I was not arguing for that; I was saying that that would be the effect of the Lords amendment.
Alex Burghart
With the amendment, what the Government could do is reduce the number of paid Ministers in the Commons and have more paid Ministers in the Lords. That would be possible under the Lords amendment.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister honestly think that I could go back to my constituents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages and say that by supporting the amendment, as he is encouraging me to do, there would be more Ministers from the other place and fewer from the Commons? How does he think that would go down on a doorstep? I have been punched in the face, and it is not great.
Alex Burghart
I am not sure whether his voters would be that impressed by the Ministers in the Commons at the moment, to be honest. The point of principle still stands: if somebody is a Minister of the Crown, it is perfectly reasonable that they should be paid for doing that job. I would be interested to know what the Government’s plans are to right that wrong.
Finally, on Lords amendment 3, which covers a new status of peers, it was unfortunate to hear some hon. Members belittle the idea, including the sleepy, dreamy hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) from the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: “Dreamy?”] I appreciate how that came out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
If the shadow Minister wishes to correct the record, please, feel free. [Laughter.]
Alex Burghart
Well, I don’t know—he looks like he has made an effort today, and he is looking at me in a particular sort of way.
There is a suggestion that everyone is busting a gut to create a new status of peerage when it is unnecessary. Let us put it this way. I think a lot of people in our country recognise that getting a peerage is one of the highest recognitions for service to the country, but there are also a good many people whom I came across when I was a Minister dealing with the honours process who are either late in age—in their 80s or 90s—or infirm and would not want to commit to serving on the red Benches because of that. It seems a bit silly that such a small change should deny them the opportunity of recognition, which costs no one anything but enables us to reward good people who have done the right things by their country.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister think that the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the Order of the British Empire are not sufficient to recognise such people? The House of Lords should be a working Chamber shaping our public life.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—there are other types of honour—but we already have peers who have stood down, and they get to keep their titles. They are called Members of the Lords but do not sit in the Lords, so the disjuncture already exists. [Interruption.] Would the Paymaster General mind passing me the water? I have got a terrible throat.
We already have peerages that work the other way round. We are suggesting that it ought to be possible for somebody who is perhaps in advanced years or not well to accept a peerage without feeling that they are under an obligation to go and sit on the red Benches. That is a perfectly reasonable request.
Gareth Snell
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way to me for a third time. I presume what he is suggesting is more about the title and the style than about a seat in the legislature. He will know that under the 2011 royal warrant that granted the justices of the Supreme Court the style and title of Lord, that did not come with any connection whatsoever to the legislature. So there is a way of doing what he suggests that does not require the Lords amendment: it can be done via royal warrant through an Order in Council.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman is very well informed, and he is exactly right. This amendment, as was discussed in the Lords, would add clarity to the process and mean that it would become more routine than occasional. In that, however, he is entirely right.
I will conclude by saying that good amendments have been sent back by their Lordships; amendments that improve this Bill in more ways than one and which would keep the considerable skill and expertise of the hereditary peers on the red Benches for a little time longer. They would not prevent the Labour Government from bringing in more peers if they wanted to and they also raise important questions about ministerial pay and how we use our titles. I am very pleased that we have reached common ground on the issue of advocate powers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Jonathan Davies
Lords amendment 1 seeks to gradually reduce to zero the number of excepted hereditary peers in the other place by ending the elections by which they are replaced. Our rich constitutional democracy has benefited from centuries of gradual evolution, and our democracy has thrived because power is not concentrated in the hands of too few people, which has mitigated the risk of overreach. Even though frustrations are frequently expressed, our parliamentary system is rightly admired around the world.
Several current excepted hereditary peers reside in my constituency. Along with other excepted hereditary peers, they make a valuable contribution and are motivated by public service. When I stood for election to this place and promised I would campaign for local jobs, I was not thinking about the hereditary peers of Mid Derbyshire necessarily, but here we are today.
Reform of the House of Lords has been on the agenda for a very long time and there is broad consensus that it should happen. Indeed, it is telling that the last Conservative Government did not seek to undo the reforms made by the previous Labour Government in 1999. From its origins in the 11th century, the House of Lords has undergone numerous changes, including a period when the Lords Spiritual were removed between 1642 and 1661 and the 11 years during which the other place was abolished altogether, from 1649 until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. More changes followed, including when legislation was passed in 1958 to create life peerages for people with specific skills and expertise to enhance our democratic processes, and that included admitting women for the first time. That spirit of reform was furthered by the last Labour Government in 1999 when the number of hereditary peers was limited to 92, freeing seats for people with a range of different experiences and expertise, regardless of their lineage.
The principle of the reforms the Government are pushing through today is not necessarily controversial, and Lords amendment 1 does not seek to block the principle of ending the involvement of excepted hereditary peers. Instead, it asks for the conclusion of their participation to be undertaken more gradually, and I believe there is some small merit in what that amendment seeks to do.
I have been lucky to work with some exceptional excepted hereditary peers on joint Committees and all-party parliamentary groups. To end their involvement at the end of the Session, rather than perhaps at the end of the Parliament, risks destabilising some of the good work that is ongoing through some of those parliamentary vehicles. Will the Minister therefore explain in his summing up whether he has considered different ways of managing that transition? For instance, we could seek to end the involvement of the excepted hereditary peers at the end of this Parliament, rather than just ahead of the next King’s speech. That might ensure that the professional relationships we have fostered with our colleagues in the other place, and the pieces of work we conduct together with them, continue to be fruitful, concluding with a natural cadence at the end of the Parliament.
Although I know the Bill has been tightly drafted to deal with the role of excepted hereditary peers only, the Government have plans for wider constitutional reform of the House of Lords, which may come before us at a later stage. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a participation requirement. It is not right that people should use the other place as a social club or a facility that they can use. It is a working Chamber, and people should be in there doing the job to which they have been appointed.
The Government have also said that they seek to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Even though it is key that the other place represents the rich social and geographical diversity of the United Kingdom, it is also essential that the House of Commons remains the principal forum where issues are considered through the lens of locality. The House of Lords, certainly since the introduction of life peerages in the 1950s, has been a vehicle to include the voices and perspectives of experts across a wide range of fields, rather than a focus on locality. I encourage my colleagues to reflect before introducing such a fundamental change to that relationship.
The manifesto that the Government and I were elected on includes a commitment to introducing mandatory retirement from the House of Lords at the age of 80. I would welcome clarification from the Dispatch Box as to whether that remains the case. Although it is necessary to get more younger voices into the House of Lords to enhance its ability to represent and serve the nation, the proposal that peers should retire at 80 would mean we would lose the contributions of Lord Kinnock, who is 83, Lord Dubs, who is 92, and Baroness Beckett, who was given a peerage by this Government aged 81.
A peer may reach their 80th birthday while working on a piece of essential legislation or leading a Committee. The House could therefore benefit from further clarity, if we are to pursue this, about how a mandatory retirement age could affect disruption to business and risk losing essential knowledge and expertise. Will the Minister also share any information, either in his summing up or in the very near future, about how the Government’s plans for constitutional reform sees the future of the Lords Spiritual, one of whom is also my constituent, in any further shake up of the other place?
My advice to the Government, as they rightly seek to make the House of Lords more representative and effective, is that they should tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Our precious democracy deserves no less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a first step to giving the House of Lords a greater democratic mandate and entrenching its valuable role within the constitution and legislature of the United Kingdom. Our democracy relies on a Parliament that equally represents all citizens of the United Kingdom, and that is why the abolition of hereditary privilege in our second Chamber is a long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats. We have called for this reform for decades and are pleased that the Government are taking steps to address this issue.
For too long, Parliament’s second Chamber has lacked the democratic mandate that would give it real impact within our legislature. Inherited membership of the Lords only weakens our democratic institutions and decreases public trust in our system. Furthermore, it reinforces the gender imbalance in the second Chamber. As I noted in previous debates on this bill, not a single one of the hereditary peers currently sitting in the Lords are women. Actually, I am taking a quick look around and I think I am the only woman here, so it falls to me—[Interruption.] That is apart from Madam Deputy Speaker; I beg your pardon. It falls to me to underline how important the democratic role of women in both our Houses of Parliament is.
I also note that this reform is not about invalidating our traditions, nor discrediting the contributions of many hereditary peers over previous decades. It is about improving democracy and restoring public trust in politics by making Parliament more representative. Many hereditary peers have expertise and skills that they have given to our political system and to our legislative process.
As I turn to today’s Lords amendments, it is disappointing yet perhaps unsurprising that after years of delays and resistance from successive Conservative Governments, they continue to resist meaningful electoral reform. Their proposed amendments would only water down the Bill or waste further time prolonging the existence of a flawed system.
I therefore wish to speak against Lords amendment 1, which would dilute the Bill and continue the system of hereditary peers. Instead of meaningful reform, it opts for an underwhelming ban on by-elections for hereditary peerages. In practice, that would have the effect of leaving all current hereditary peers in place indefinitely, thus continuing this antique system for many years to come. For years, cross-party efforts have attempted to end the by-election system for hereditary peers, despite successive Conservative Governments resisting this vital reform. Now there is an opportunity to end the entire system of hereditary peerages, and the Conservatives once again continue to resist change.
The Bill and the amendments being considered today highlight that the will of Parliament is to end the hereditary system in the Lords. There has been enough delay; it is time to be decisive and to end hereditary peerages in entirety, here and now. We have the will, the power and the means to end this anomaly before us today. There is no need for the amendment.
I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 2. As outlined by Lord True, 14 Conservative Government-appointed unsalaried Ministers and Whips were in the Lords at the end of the previous Parliament, and Commons Library research confirms that since 2015 there have been at least 30 unsalaried Ministers and Whips in the Lords. Today, the very same party that appointed them seeks to champion the end of such appointments, as if they had not had the power to effect this change themselves on many occasions over the past decade.
I draw Members’ attention to the points eloquently raised by my excellent colleague the Lord Wallace of Saltaire in the other place regarding potential anomalies that the amendment could allow. I want to focus on Lord True, who, in introducing the amendment in the other place, said that it would not apply to any existing Member but only to future ministerial appointments in the Lords. Given that all hereditary peers are current Members of the Lords, I fail to understand what relevance the amendment has to the legislation in front of us. Unusually, I happen to agree with Lord True that all Ministers should be properly remunerated, but I struggle to understand why a piece of legislation that aims to scrap the principle of hereditary peers is the appropriate vehicle to enshrine that point. The Lord True spoke movingly of his shame and anger at being unable to provide remuneration to his fellow Conservatives during the last Parliament—I am not sure I completely sympathise. Remuneration of Lords Ministers is an issue for another occasion.
Liberal Democrats believe that the solution to the issue of democratic accountability and proper remuneration of our Ministers does not lie in this poorly drafted amendment. Instead, we must push for wholesale reform of the House of Lords and our democratic system more widely, including devolving powers so that the decisions that affect people’s lives are made closer to the places where they are put into effect. We therefore urge Members to reject the amendment and instead work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce proper reform of the House of Lords and give it the democratic mandate it needs.
I also wish to speak against Lords amendment 3. When the Bill came to the House, it represented an opportunity for a first step towards meaningful reform of the second Chamber. That is why I originally tabled new clause 7, which would have committed the Government to future legislation on reforming the second Chamber, and new clause 8, which would have increased transparency in the second Chamber by strengthening the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, the Conservatives have demonstrated no interest in strengthening or improving our democratic and legislative institutions. Instead, their amendment creates yet another type of peerage. It is an unnecessary amendment that does nothing to strengthen democracy or transparency.
Since Lords amendment 3 before us specifically calls for a new type of peerage, it follows that it is not relevant to legislation that specifically and exclusively deals with the legacy of hereditary peers. If the Conservatives have proposals that could meaningfully improve our second Chamber, they should support Liberal Democrat calls for further reform of the House of Lords. I look forward to their support for our calls to change the opaque appointment process for peers and to reduce the inflated size of our second Chamber. If the Government could update us today on their proposals for legislation for further reform of the House of Lords, then the Conservatives could put forward their proposals for new categories of peerages. This House should look to be ambitious on political reform of the second Chamber. They should not look to expand a democratically flawed system with time-wasting amendments. The Liberal Democrats will therefore be voting to reject this amendment.
We welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, which are modest but important changes that will improve how the House of Lords functions. The amendments aim to support those peers who may lack capacity to fulfil their duties. Lasting power of attorney has been effective in supporting individuals’ freedoms and dignity, and it is only right that peers are not excluded from those freedoms. We welcome those amendments and will support their introduction into this legislation.
Returning to the Bill as a whole, Liberal Democrats welcome its aims. However, we are concerned that by passing this Bill, the Government will believe that their efforts can end here. Let me be clear: this Bill is a welcome step towards a better democracy, but it should not be the final step. The 2017 Burns report recommended a decrease in the size of our second Chamber, which the Liberal Democrats support. The process of prime ministerial appointments entrenches patronage and elitism within our politics, and the Liberal Democrats support moving away from that system. Labour’s own manifesto committed to a retirement age for peers—another change that we would support.
There continue to be so many opportunities to improve the functioning of our democratic institutions. The Government should now look into those further measures, including what is the most overdue and important change when it comes to the Lords: finally giving it a proper democratic mandate.
I urge hon. and right hon. Members to oppose Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3, which would water down the Bill. The Liberal Democrats will support this once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix part of our broken political system and use it to strengthen democracy in our Parliament and begin rebuilding trust in our politics.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Lords amendment 1 flies in the face of the intention of the Government and this House to immediately reform the House of Lords by removing the last 91 peers who sit in Parliament based solely on their bloodline entitlement.
I start with the premise that the last 91 hereditary peers sit in the other place as a result of a compromise in 1999, when more than 660 hereditary peers were removed. I take the view that the other place, and indeed this Parliament, is no less effective as a result. The very architect of that compromise, the Marquess of Salisbury, said himself that the arrangement was supposed to last for around six months. The final 91 have had an effective notice period of 26 years already—a notice period that any worker in the real economy would no doubt welcome. It is now time to complete this reform.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. The work that Lord Grocott did on this in the other place is commendable, but it was sadly blocked time and again by the Conservatives. On my hon. Friend’s point about the youngest hereditary peer and the number of general elections that may have passed before he will have seen himself out, by no longer being a Member of the House of Lords he would regain his right to vote and stand in general elections, so if he wished to return to Parliament, there would be plenty of places in this House that he could try for.
Shaun Davies
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A point that has been made by other Members, including from the Opposition Benches, is that there is nothing stopping the Leader of the Opposition putting forward any hereditary peers for life peerages.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman says that the Leader of the Opposition could give those peerages, but he will be aware that that is organised through the usual channels, in conjunction with the Prime Minister and members of the governing party. We would be a lot more comfortable talking about the replacement of hereditary peers if the Minister had come with any clarity on the conditions that may be set going forward, but we have had none of that. I challenge the Minister to say that hereditary peers can be put in as life peers. We would like some more information on what we are getting.
Shaun Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. This is about priorities and choices. The Leader of the Opposition will be able to nominate people this year and next year—and maybe the year after, if she is still in place. She can make a decision on whether to put forward a hereditary peer or someone else during that spell.
Gareth Snell
I am sorry to intervene again, but this is an important point. Since the general election, there have been 21 nominees to the other place. That would have counted for half the entire hereditary peerage group of the Conservative party, had the Leader of the Opposition taken the opportunity to promote them to life peerages. By not doing so, the Conservatives have chosen to keep those hereditary peers out.
Shaun Davies
The Leader of the Opposition has a number of tough choices ahead of her, and those choices will no doubt be executed using her good political judgment.
To conclude, to right hon. and hon. Members from different sides of the Chamber who say that we need more reform of Parliament, the House of Lords, the constitution and the way in which the country works, I say—as a moderniser and the MP for an area for which the current system does not work—that I could not agree more. But this modest change—this slender Bill—has taken around 10 hours in this place and 40 in the other place, with more than 180 amendments tabled, so imagine how a larger and more far-reaching Bill would be treated. As the Minister has stated, many Members from across the political spectrum in the other place have called for a cross-party approach, and that is exactly what the Government are doing through the establishment of a Select Committee.
Let me close on this thought. We have heard for many decades the promise of future reforms. I support and will vote with the Government today on the basis that those future reforms will come through. I hope that the Government will be true to their word, and constituents like mine, who have seen themselves locked out of this place for far too long, will have the opportunity to serve it.
Sir Edward Leigh
Well, here we are again. The House of Commons and the House of Lords love debating reform of the Lords—we have been doing it for over 120 years. But we have made a bit of progress: at least, after all this time, we seem finally to have killed off the idea that the House of Lords should be elected. That is a great step forward, and I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in realising that that would just replicate the sort of system that they have in Washington and make it virtually impossible to have coherent government. I say well done; I think that we should give credit where it is due. The poor old Liberals have been dreaming about reform with elections for 100 years, but I am afraid that it is not going to happen.
I will, though, take issue with the Minister for being a bit cruel about the Conservative party when he accused us of having been relentlessly negative for all these years. He seems to have forgotten that in the 1920s—we have heard about 1924—the Conservative party led the debate on making the House of Lords a genuine Parliament of the Commonwealth, and very innovative ideas were coming out of the Conservative party. He blames the Conservatives for endlessly blocking reform, but it was actually the unholy alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell during the Wilson years that blocked the last real attempt at House of Lords reform.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Father of the House mentions Conservative party policy in the 1920s and 1960s. Maybe he can recall better than me, but I do not believe there was any mention of House of Lords reform in the Conservative party general election manifesto last year. Will he illuminate the House on Conservative policy on reforming the other place?
Sir Edward Leigh
Our policy is very sensible: gradual evolution and reform. That is what the Conservative party is all about.
This is an historic day, and it is a rather sad one. After the Crown, the House of Lords is the most ancient part of Parliament, and the hereditary peers are the most ancient part of the House of Lords Chamber. One can laugh at history and say, “This is all old hat,” but history is important. This all evolved from the Magnum Concilium, or Great Council, of England. The coming together of England into a single realm was through the witans assembled by the King, comprising nobles and prelates. Bishops, abbots, ealdormen and thegns came from across the land. It was not just their privilege but their feudal duty—it was all about duty—to give the King counsel and consent.
It slowly evolved so that some peers sat in Parliament by their office, such as the Bishop of Lincoln, or by their hereditary title, such as the Earl of Arundel. I repeat this point: I cannot understand the contempt and hatred for people just because they have their office by virtue of heredity. The hereditary peers are the only people in the House of Lords who are actually elected by anybody.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
This is not about individuals; it is about the principle. Does the Father of the House agree that it is the principle we should be talking about today, not the individuals, however good they may be at serving in the other place?
Sir Edward Leigh
Frankly, I do not agree with that principle. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, this will leave the monarchy wholly exposed as the only person who holds his office by reason of hereditary principle.
Sir Edward Leigh
I will make a bit of progress.
I know the Minister will say that the monarchy is popular—which it is—and that it does not have political power, but it has infinitely more influence than any hereditary peer. I do not think we should accept that the hereditary principle is entirely wrong. Even if we accept that and say it is quite wrong that somebody should be called an hereditary peer, which I suspect is a lot of the problem, why do we not just make all the existing hereditary peers—who, as we have heard, are not stately home owners; they are dedicated public servants, with scores of them having worked in Parliament for years—life peers? Given that they are dedicated public servants, if we hate the fact that they are called hereditary peers, why not have an evolutionary form and call them life peers? But we are not doing that.
Lords amendment 1, tabled by my party in the other place, is entirely sensible. Rather than kicking people out in a flash, the hereditary peers—which we could now call life peers, if it is the name that makes people unhappy—could simply fade away. There is a lot of merit in old people gradually fading away rather than dying.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not declare an interest.
In a sense, that is already the case, as the Lords have suspended hereditary peer by-elections by amending the Standing Orders of their Chamber. Evolution rather than revolution—bending instead of breaking—is the usual method of British constitutional change. It has worked very well in the past, and I do not see why it should not work now. It is far wiser than overnight change.
There is also the matter of optics and fairness. This, of course, is a partisan point by its very nature, but of the 86 remaining hereditary peers, 48 are members of Opposition parties—Conservative or Liberal—31 are independent Cross Benchers, and two are totally non-affiliated. Britons pride themselves on the spirit of fair play. It is not, frankly, cricket for a governing party to expel Opposition Members from the national legislature. As Lord Strathclyde pointed out, if any other country were doing this—expelling Members of Parliament primarily because they were from Opposition parties—we would be launching petitions against it.
Mark Ferguson
I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He makes a compelling point about other countries. Would he care to name some other countries that have people sitting in their legislature, able to introduce and vote on legislation, entirely by dint of their parentage? For the life of me, I cannot think of many examples.
Sir Edward Leigh
Of course, nothing in our constitution is perfect. We would not be starting here—we accept that. We are just saying that this is a group of dedicated public servants who have done nothing wrong, and we are simply asking that they should be allowed to carry on their work, rather than be kicked out primarily because they are from Opposition parties.
Sir Edward Leigh
No. The hon. Gentleman is a very good chap, but he has had a lot of turns.
We all know that the real reason behind all of this is that the Government want to make space for more of their donors and cronies to enter the House of Lords, and that is entirely understandable. By the way, I think that there are sensible reforms that could be made in the House of Lords and that there has been a lot of abuse. I think that too many people have been appointed to the House of Lords—this is where the SNP has a good point—who are donors and cronies.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend the Father of the House for everything he is saying; he sums everything up perfectly. This is constitutional vandalism, and it is destroying the continuity that has made this place so effective and so special for so many centuries. This is clearly being done with a political motivation, which I think is thoroughly wrong. If we make a constitutional reform, at very least the British people should have a say in a referendum.
Sir Edward Leigh
Well, the Whip is looking at me. He wants me to sit down. My hon. Friend has made the point brilliantly, and I shall now sit down.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I rise to speak to all the Lords amendments, but I will go into more detail on Lords amendments 1, 2, 3 and 8. I am pleased that the Bill is making progress, and I look forward to seeing it on the statute book as soon as possible. We are one step closer to fulfilling yet another manifesto pledge.
I welcome Lords amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 for the reasons already set out. They will allow Members of the other place who lose capacity to retire with the dignity that they deserve. It is clearly a sensitive and complex problem, and I congratulate the Government on finding a solution that received unanimous cross-party support in the other place. I hope it will receive the same cross-party unanimous support in this place today.
We have already discussed Lords amendments 1 and 8, which propose to stop hereditary peer by-elections and stop any vacancies being filled, although they would still allow current hereditary peers to stay in the Lords, allowing their numbers to grow smaller and smaller as they gradually begin to leave. If passed, the amendments would leave the current crop of hereditary peers in the Second Chamber for years and years—indeed, in some cases, as we have heard, for decades—but the entire purpose of the Bill is to remove them immediately, because of the principle that underpins our decision to make this change.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I count a great many hereditary peers among my friends, and I know that they do excellent jobs. However, Britain stands, alongside Lesotho, as a complete anomaly in the 21st century by preserving legislative roles based on lineage. Serving in this House, as in any other, is a privilege of the highest order. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our legislators should be there on the basis of merit rather than DNA?
Mark Sewards
I congratulate the hon. Lady for having so many friends in the other place. I could not agree with her more—it is almost as if she has read my speech and hence made her timely intervention.
Andrew Rosindell
If the hon. Gentleman agrees that the hereditary principle is wrong and that no one should be in this Parliament by dint of DNA, surely he is saying that we should abolish the monarchy. The Crown is part of this Parliament and Royal Assent is part of the legislative process. If we go by his principle, the hon. Gentleman is basically saying that the monarchy itself is no longer relevant. Is that what he is saying?
Mark Sewards
All I would say is, “Long live the King.” What we do with our hereditary peers today does not affect what we do with our monarchy. As I was saying, no one should serve in the other place and make our laws simply because of the family that they were born into. No one should—not them, not me, not my children and not theirs. That is a basic principle that I hope we can all get behind.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s case, in essence, is that the only form of legitimacy in the exercise of power is democratic legitimacy, but that does not square with the exercise of power in all kinds of other ways, does it? We do not elect our judges—some countries do, but we do not. We do not elect all kinds of people who exercise fundamental powers. Many kinds of legitimacy are not democratic legitimacy. Surely he acknowledges that, had the Government come forward with a proposal that allowed the hereditary peerage to wither on the vine, it would be hard for anyone in the House to disagree, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment.
Mark Sewards
The principle I am talking about applies specifically to the two Chambers that make and scrutinise our laws, submit amendments and so on. The idea that some people should be allowed a say in that process because of the family they were born into is alien to me. The House of Lords should have been abolished years ago. I am glad that the Government are finally taking the steps to remove that principle.
I am certain that decent arguments can be made for the contributions of hereditary peers being good ones, often with the nuance and expertise that comes with dedicated service in the other place. I have no doubt that we will hear such arguments today, but the same is true of those who are appointed as life peers—at least when political parties fulfil their responsibilities and choose appropriate people for the roles. Life peers, too, will go on to make excellent contributions and scrutinise our laws carefully using their relevant expertise and knowledge—given that they are often selected because of their expertise and knowledge, and not in the cynical way that the shadow Front Bench and others were suggesting earlier. Even if they do not, it is a life appointment, not one based on blood that they can pass down to the next generation, so I think that the system of life peerages is the better way to go. If Opposition Members genuinely believe that the hereditary peers who will lose their places because of this legislation should still be in the other place, they can ensure that the Leader of the Opposition, whoever that is, submits their names to make them a life peer.
Sir Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and I think that people with a mind to compromise would like to go down that road, but does he recognise that the usual handful of allocations will not be enough on this one-off occasion to meet the requirement that he has so ably outlined?
Mark Sewards
More than 20 positions are available already and, as time goes on, more will become available. It will be up to the Leader of the Opposition to make that decision.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party manifesto stated clearly that we will abolish hereditary peers? Were we not to do so, the people of this country would simply be bewildered.
Mark Sewards
My hon. Friend made the point extremely well. I have had to deal with this on a number of issues, including introducing VAT on private schools, for example, where Members came to this place, argued the point and said that we had no right to do it—yet it was in our manifesto, so we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation. I hope that Opposition Members will join us in the lobbies as we do so. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) chunters from a sedentary position, but I am more than happy to take an intervention, if he wishes to make one.
Alex Burghart
If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Labour party has a moral obligation to implement every part of its manifesto, how does he feel about the bits that it has already ditched?
Mark Sewards
The Labour party has a moral obligation to fulfil our manifesto pledges, and I am confident that during our five-year term we will make great progress on everything that we set out in that document.
I have argued that Lords amendment 1 undermines the core purpose of the Bill and is entirely inconsistent with our commitment to remove hereditary peers from the other place. Lords amendment 2 is an attempt to ensure that in future all Ministers who sit in the House of Lords are paid a salary. Having read Lords Hansard, I know that this is a well-intentioned amendment and I can see why the Lords have submitted it. However, ministerial salaries are determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, so any proposals to change them should be made through amendments to that Act rather than through this Bill. This Bill is specific, narrow and focused. If we want to have a conversation about those salaries, we need to allocate far more time to that and consider separate legislation, so I will not be supporting Lords amendment 2.
I had to do quite a bit of reading around the subject to understand Lords amendment 3. I understand that Lord True, the leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, wanted to clarify the power of the monarch to confer a life peerage that is granted without a right to a seat in the House of Lords. The creation of a new form of life peerage without any kind of parliamentary responsibility is unnecessary—I will take interventions, as I am happy to have this point clarified—because, quite simply, the King already has that power. He used it when he granted his brother, Prince Edward, the title of Duke of Edinburgh. Therefore, the power already exists and the need to clarify that power is unnecessary.
Lord True mentioned that the newly clarified power could be used to honour people without swelling the ranks of the House of Lords. However, as we have already heard, if we want to recognise special contributions to public life, there are already plenty of ways to do that, such as knighthoods, damehoods, OBEs, CBEs and so on. I maintain that life peerages should be reserved for those who actively participate in the work of the House of Lords, and I therefore urge the House to disagree with Lords amendment 3.
Speaking about Lords reform more broadly, which has come up during the debate, I was pleased to read in Lords Hansard that Baroness Smith has suggested that a Select Committee, set up in the other place, could be used to examine a mandatory retirement age and minimum participation requirements, which I know many Members in this House support. The suggestion included a timeframe: set the Committee up within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and it will report back next year, so we can make real progress on the other commitments. I wholeheartedly endorse that approach and look forward to the outcome of this work.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. I am inclined to agree with him about the appointment of life peers who do not sit. I do not know the view of Members on the Government Front Bench on that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good and valid argument. If people do not attend, it is sensible that they should not retain their right to do so. If people are appointed to the House of Lords and then never turn up, there is a good argument that there should be a point at which they should be told that they no longer have that title. However, on the matter of retirement on the grounds of age, this is a very dicey business, given that we have legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of age.
Mark Sewards
The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made and I will be following the work of the Select Committee closely. We have already heard names mentioned of people who are over the age of 80 and still making great contributions, so I will follow the Committee’s work closely before making a final judgment on the issue.
More broadly than the work that the Committee will undertake, once this Bill has become law, I will continue to advocate for a second Chamber that is more representative of our nations and regions.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
What about Scotland?
Mark Sewards
The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. When it comes to Scotland, the figure is about 2% or 3%—I cannot recall the actual figures, but I will check.
The point remains that we have to make the House of Lords more representative of our nations and regions. We could address this issue in a piecemeal way, in the same way that we have addressed the hereditary issue over many decades. We could slowly introduce reform after reform on who gets appointed, where they come from, what proportion have to come from Yorkshire and so on, but I am not a fan of that approach. We should be as bold as possible and do the difficult work now, because we were elected to do the difficult work in this term and set out an ambitious plan for the wholesale replacement of the other Chamber, ready to be made up of people from all our nations and regions. It should be a truly democratic body that draws on the same golden thread that should always exist between the people we serve in this place and those who should sit in a second elected Chamber. [Interruption.] Hon. Members chunter that this point is off topic; I probably agree, because the Bill does not cover that.
I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill in front of us will remove the archaic right of somebody to sit in Parliament because of the family they were born into; I find that principle very hard to disagree with. The Bill shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative, and it should be just the start of our commitment to reform the other place and improve our ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here.
Sir John Hayes
I want to inject some energy. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I am energetic about this matter. It is preposterous to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, on the basis that they give good service that, as I have already described, legitimately can be derived from a variety of sources. Many of them are disproportionately active in that Chamber. I accept that there is a manifesto commitment, but this could be done in a much more measured, sensible and moderate way. Is that enough energy for him?
Pete Wishart
That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers.
I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform.
I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected.
Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary.
The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death.
The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [Interruption.] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful.
I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Wishart, we are debating the amendments, not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps you should stick to the amendments.
Pete Wishart
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.
The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I will start by setting out some context for why the Bill, though small, is so important and why I am delighted to be speaking in its support. I will then address Lords amendments 1, 3 and 8 directly. As has been mentioned in the debate, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the Government are delivering, and not a moment too soon. The principle at stake here is simple, and it is about the principle, not the process. No one should make laws for the British people, claim a daily allowance or influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in the history books, not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour party’s values and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025.
Of course, the Conservative party will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today, with talk about the Blair Government’s reforms in 1999, when we all know that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future ones. We have heard about next steps and whether a statutory Committee or a Select Committee is the right thing to do. Having asked the Opposition about their official policy, I am still unaware what it is. Indeed, we heard from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about his concerns that this is all a numbers game. I remind him that UCL’s constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the Conservative peers would still be the largest group of all the parties in the other place—larger even than the Cross Benchers. The Conservatives would see a minor reduction in composition from 34% to 32%.
The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned that he is not supportive of an elected upper Chamber. I am still at a loss about exactly what a gradual change in the composition of the upper House means.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions gradual change, which was apparently the policy of the Conservative party. Does he agree that a six-month temporary arrangement that takes a quarter of a century to overturn is the epitome of gradual?
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly the concern that I and many Members on the Government Benches have. Long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the principle of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies.
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the hon. Member’s contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I think all Members—the House will be conscious that I have not been in the Chair very long—might like to stick to the scope of the amendments and what we are actually debating this afternoon.
Phil Brickell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will come to the amendments very shortly.
Mention was made of constitutional monarchies. A number of European countries have constitutional monarchies that have a hereditary principle, but none of them has hereditary Members in their Parliaments. Mention was also made of the hereditary principle for parliamentarians being somewhat unique, and of the principle of mandatory retirement at a certain age—indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned it. Of course, that principle also exists in the judiciary, and I do not see any objection there from a human rights perspective.
UCL’s constitution unit found that a clear majority of the public—60%—want hereditary peers gone for good. Who can blame them? The record speaks for itself: not a single female hereditary peer has been elected in 66 years, over a third of hereditary peers are concentrated in London and the south-east, and by-elections are so farcical that they verge on satire. By-elections are in scope of Lords amendment 1, which I will come to shortly.
My electorate in Bolton West is about 76,000 electors. In July last year, 17,363 people voted to elect me as their MP in order to give them a voice in this Chamber. But in 2018 one hereditary peer was elected with a dozen votes—fewer than it takes to become a parish councillor.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend was giving his eloquent and excellent speech, I was reminded of a comedy series called “Blackadder”, in which such bizarre electoral practices happened on our television screens. It is a shame that they seem to be happening even today.
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend makes a very good point; indeed, he talks of one of my all-time favourite comedies. It speaks to the need for drastic reform of the other place, which is long overdue.
In a Tory by-election in the other place, another peer asserted that fellow Members should vote for him because he
“races on the Solent and gardens enthusiastically”.
The electorate for that vote were a grand total of 43. These are not truly democratic contests. They do not seek to promote those with the very best talent and expertise to serve this country. Such by-elections lack the fundamentals of what should be at the heart of this mother of Parliaments: transparency, accountability and scrutiny.
Since 1999, there have been over 30 of these bizarre contests, all with vanishingly small electorates—a process that is, frankly, long overdue reform. They have all produced lawmakers by accident of birth, and that is the principle to which I and many Members on the Labour Benches object. That is why I will be voting against the Lords amendments today.
Sir John Hayes
Just to refresh my memory, which Government instituted the arrangement whereby a certain number of hereditaries stayed and the kind of election that the hon. Gentleman describes was introduced? Was it a Tory Government, or was it a Labour Government?
Phil Brickell
The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year.
That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.
Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle.
Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021:
“Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”
That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with.
In summary—
Pete Wishart
Yes, there are of course some appalling practices with the Conservatives rewarding their donors with peerages, but does the hon. Member not remember cash for honours? There was a police investigation, and Tony Blair was actually questioned by the police. This goes on in all parties, and each of them is a disgrace.
Phil Brickell
In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that this Bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second Chamber: to improving its national and regional balance; to introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it.
Jack Rankin
I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8, and therefore against the motion, in two minds. I say in two minds because I find the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers without seeking consensus, which is what a rejection of Lords amendment 1 would mean, both regrettable and exciting. I would like to take each of these two polarising mindsets in turn.
My first emotion is regret. Britain has something of a Schrödinger’s cat constitution. We are simultaneously a modern, plural and open democracy, and a kind of autocratic theocracy. Our national motto, “Dieu and mon droit”—God and my right—points to the hereditary monarch being appointed by and accountable only to God. We have a state religion in England and Scotland, and in England the divinely appointed monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church. The bishops, whom the King appoints, sit in our legislature, as do hereditary peers, who are the focus of the amendment. The King appoints the judiciary and is the commander of the armed forces. On paper, as Labour Members have pointed out, the country with which we have most in common is the demonic Islamic Republic, but unlike Iran we have simultaneously free and fair elections, broad debate in a free press, and freedom of religious and belief, and we are an open member of the international order.
The point is that we would never design our tapestry of a constitution. In many ways it is absurd, but it is organic. It is rooted in the millennia of history. In two years’ time, we will celebrate the 1100th birthday of England, the most remarkable nation on earth, which a majority of us in this place are fortunate to have won the lottery of life to be born in. We should be respectful of that evolution, because that evolving constitutional order has empirically served us well. It is how it works in practice that matters, not how it looks on the ideological grand planner’s piece of paper.
Sir John Hayes
I am not surprised that my hon. Friend is making the speech that he is, because he understands that, essentially, our system is an organic one. Constitutions are not written from a blueprint—they can be, but they are not in this country—and what he is describing is a blend of democratic legitimacy and the other forms of the exercise of power. What the Government are proposing is not a democratic House of Lords, but an appointed House. That in itself contradicts some of the speeches made by Labour Members.
Jack Rankin
My right hon. Friend is right. Our national story has brought us to a place where this House is rightfully dominant among the three parts of Parliament in exercising the sovereignty of the King in Parliament, but we should be careful of the wholesale execution of one of those arms. Let us be clear: that is what the unilateral removal of the hereditary peers would do. The other place without them is no more a House of Lords than my terraced house in Sunninghill is. A Cromwellian purge, it would leave that place the preserve of political cronies and failed advisers. Is that what we want? Is that progress?
The House of Lords today is difficult to justify, but it works. This place has the attention span of a TikTok-addled teenager, as we jump to half-hourly news cycles driven by Twitter and rolling news.
Andrew Rosindell
My hon. Friend is making the correct argument. The hereditary peerage in the House of Lords represents continuity in our country and wisdom throughout the ages. Most of the House of Lords is appointed, but that hereditary element is vital as part of the mix of our very successful parliamentary constitution.
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend’s point is right, and I thank him for it.
We walk through the Division lobbies, directed by the Whips, often having had no time, because of the impossible juggling act, to develop real knowledge of the topic in question or to think through properly the implications. Some of the stuff that leaves this place with a massive majority might have well been written in crayon. Thank God for the other place. Do not remove long-serving public servants and outstanding legislators. Do not pick at the threads of our constitution. The other place is one of the parts of our constitution which works best. We should retain Lords amendment 1 and 8.
I talked of a tension, a conflict in my thinking. I have tried to articulate a deeply conservative instinct, but I also feel excitement, as I will explain. My view is that the British state is way off course, dangerously off course. It needs deep and radical change. To take one issue, immigration, almost nothing is now too radical to consider. Whether we look at the asylum system or legal migration, the radical change that the country needs will be of significant scale. None of that will be possible in the Blairite constitutional straitjacket that is at direct odds with our historic constitution.
Mark Ferguson
That is a fascinating argument. The hon. Gentleman has argued in favour of the Lords for their restraint, and now he is arguing in favour of the Lords because they allow radicalism. That does not make any sense.
Jack Rankin
That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have plenty of respect for it.
Jack Rankin
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for.
Kevin Bonavia
Our constitution is indeed a very curious beast. Nobody starting from scratch would come anywhere near designing what we have for this country—perhaps apart from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and some of those on the Benches behind him. It has evolved over the centuries in response to the political pressures that arise from time to time, and today is part of that evolution. As the constitution has changed, our traditions have remained. I for one love a bit of tradition in this place, especially when it tells the story of how we have come to be where we are; whether it is Royal Assent being signified in Norman French or the doors of this Chamber being shut on the entry of Black Rod, it all tells a story. However, when tradition holds us back from the work we are sent here to do, it becomes a barrier.
Sir John Hayes
Just to get Cromwell right: it was Cromwell, rather like Boris Johnson, who ended the Long Parliament by walking into this Chamber, so the parallel is probably closer than the hon. Gentleman would like to suggest.
Cromwell was a tyrant, really, in all kinds of other ways, who wanted his son to succeed him, so he believed in the hereditary principle.
On the point of substance, the point about the House of Lords is that it is a check on the power of this place, and that is a helpful thing for Governments, actually, as sometimes Governments benefit from having to think again. The continuity that is being argued for from the Conservative Benches is part of a healthy constitutional settlement. If we sacrifice that settlement, I think we will get less good, rather than better, government.
Kevin Bonavia
I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of a check on this place. However, that check must come with due wisdom and expertise. We have heard from the Conservative Benches about those centuries of wisdom, but wisdom cannot simply be passed down genetically to people in the other place today. Surely we need people in the other place who have expertise and are there on merit, not because of who their ancestors were.
Lords amendment 1 seeks to amend the 1999 compromise of by-elections to replace vacant hereditary peers by allowing the cohort of hereditary seats to gradually reduce by natural departure. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said, that amendment would effectively delay our manifesto commitment to end the hereditary element in the other place for many years to come.
As I said earlier, this is about not individuals or personalities but ensuring that our institutions reflect the values of our modern democracy. I have seen at first hand the important role of the second Chamber in scrutinising legislation and improving the quality of lawmaking, but that role must be based on merit and public service, not on birthright. If anyone watching today’s debate is a hereditary peer—I see none up in the Gallery—and is dismayed at the prospect of no longer being able to contribute to the work of the other place, I say to them: do not be downhearted. Anyone in principle, including ex-hereditary peers, should have the ability to serve as a parliamentarian if they are willing and able to do the necessary work—and work is the point here.
Doing the necessary work brings me to Lords amendment 3, which would effectively bring about a new tradition of creating life peerages as honours in name only, with no work involved. What on earth is the use of that? There are plenty of other honours, as we have heard, that His Majesty can bestow that would show due public recognition for services rendered to this country. The other place is not and should not be used as an honours board. It should be a working and effective part of our legislature—our Parliament.
I believe that any parliamentarian comes to this building to do the work, to hold or be held to account, to raise issues that matter to the wider country and to pass good and workable laws. When I was elected on that expectation by my constituents in Stevenage, that was the pledge I promised to uphold. Although Members of the other place do not have expectations from constituents, I believe there is an expectation from the public as a whole that they are there to do the work of good parliamentarians. An empty life peerage title would only take away from that public expectation.
These amendments complicate what is and should be a simple task before us: to deliver—finally—on ending the principle of hereditary peerages and ensure that the other place is a working place in a Parliament that works for all the people.
Mark Ferguson
This has been a suitably fascinating debate. I do not plan to speak for too long, because the points have already been well made. We have had 10 hours here and 52 flippin’ hours in the House of Lords on this concise, four-clause Bill, and now we have a number of amendments. I will address Lords amendments 1 and 2.
Lords amendment 1 is fairly straightforward up and down. We know what it is. It is a wrecking amendment, pure and simple. It is nothing more than an amendment designed to preserve the hereditary principle in the House of Lords—a principle that is an outdated anachronism that has no place in 2025 or any modern democracy. The only other comparable democracy is Lesotho. I do not know much about Lesotho, but I would quite like not to share this unenviable record with the good people of Lesotho for any longer.
The point has been made that if we do not want the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, perhaps that means that we no longer want the monarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As all Members in this place did, I swore an oath of allegiance to the King. I have not always been ardent monarchist, but I support a constitutional monarchy, and one of the many reasons I do is because the monarch has absolutely no role in introducing laws, in amending laws or in voting on laws. The monarch’s role is quite clear and simple: Royal Assent. They do not obstruct the work of this place—rightly so—and yet we have heard so many times today about the guerilla warfare that is being led in the other place against numerous pieces of legislation in retribution against this simple removal of an anachronism.
That is not what the King does. Frankly, it is when monarchs have sought to obstruct this House that references to Cromwell are relevant. That is not what the Bill does; it is about removing the hereditary principle from the legislature that develops, scrutinises and delivers legislation. The King may sign it—that is his role.
Sir John Hayes
The point has been repeatedly made from the Government Benches that this is a matter of principle and that hereditary power is unacceptable. Now, the hon. Member is right that the King has no role in introducing legislation, and so on and so forth, but the King does have immense political influence. Which Labour Back Bencher meets the Prime Minister weekly to discuss the affairs of state?
Sir John Hayes
Madam Deputy Speaker, the king of Stoke!
Which Labour Back Bencher receives a regular report from the Whips on the proceedings of this House? That is what the King has. The King rightly has powers, and he derives his power by birth.
Mark Ferguson
I delighted to inform the right hon. Member about the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench committee, which meets the Prime Minister weekly when Parliament is sitting. I see at least one of my hon. Friends from the committee here—[Interruption.] In fact, there are two here. Staffordshire is well represented at the moment on the committee, and that is quite right—oatcakes all round for them, and of course for the Prime Minister.
Mark Ferguson
I will happily take a point in a second from my hon. Friend, which I presume will be on the Lords amendment and not on oatcakes, but I wish to respond fully to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) before I got so distracted. I apologise for that self-distraction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The role of the Lords in our legislature is quite clear, as is the role of the monarch. In fact, I spoke this morning to students from Emmanuel college in my constituency about the three distinct parts of our Parliament: this place, the other place and, of course, the monarch. But the principle under discussion is the ability to introduce, amend or vote on legislation. The King does none of those, so I see no contradiction on that important point of principle.
I will now happily accept an intervention.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although the moment has passed slightly. I wanted to thank him for acknowledging the work of the PLP Back-Bench committee. I will happily bring him some oatcakes from home on Monday morning.
Mark Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend, although I do not think that will help me with my diet. However, I am doing the great north run on Sunday so I will probably need the calories.
I am happy that we are having the debate, but I am somewhat surprised by its tenor, which runs contrary to the Salisbury convention—its correct name, of course, is the Salisbury-Addison convention; we too often neglect the Labour Member of that important duopoly. It has been surprising—particularly so on Second Reading, when the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), led for the Opposition—that there has not been a more straightforward argument from the Opposition in favour of the hereditary principle, because it seems fairly clear that that is what they are arguing for.
I dare say there is a—probably dwindling—proportion of the electorate who wish to see the hereditary principle enshrined within those crucial aspects of our legislature in the scope of our discussions, but no Opposition Members appear willing to make that argument. I am afraid it is an act of constitutional contortion for them to say they merely wish to allow some people to serve out their time. If that is the case, why do we have elections? Many wonderful public servants on both sides of the House lost their seats at the last election; but in this place we believe that, at the will of the people, any of us could be gone—and that is quite right.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member is making the point that any of us should be able to go, and I agree. Should that not be the case for all parliamentarians and not just those in this House?
Mark Ferguson
My long-standing views on reform of our Parliament can be looked up by any Member if they so wish. I very much welcomed, both on Second Reading and from the Front Bench today, the comments on the future reform of the Lords and what that might look like. However, I dare say to the hon. Gentleman that we might agree on some specific aspects more than he imagines.
There has not been much discussion of Lords amendment 2, on Ministers’ pay. I welcome the Conservative party’s stout defence of working people and of ensuring that people are paid what they are owed. We have also heard references to equalities law from the Opposition Benches, and I welcome that. I just think it is such as a shame that it is only being applied specifically and uniquely to hereditary peers.
As Conservative Members well know, there is a limit on the number of Ministers who can be paid. I think that is right and I do not believe that now is the right time to expand the cost of our politics with more paid Ministers. However, if the Conservative party believes, genuinely and deep down in its soul, that it needed to have more paid Ministers, it had 14 years of Government in which it could have done that, rather than tacking it on as a distraction from the issue at hand here, which is incrementally but crucially reforming our constitution.
I support the Government’s position on all the amendments. Let us get on with this. We have had 62 hours of debate—and counting. Let us crack on. It has been 1,100 years; I think it is time to cut it short.
Gareth Snell
I draw attention to my interest on two fronts, in that my wife is a life peer in the House of Lords and a salaried Minister.
Gareth Snell
Yes, she is very good. I thank my hon. Friend for that.
I want to start by addressing some of the points that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) made—he has left. His characterisation of the House of Lords is grossly unfair. He characterised everybody who is a Member as being some sort of pocket-stuffing hanger-on. I think that exposes more about his particular brand of petty grievance politics than it does about the actual calibre of the individuals down at the end of the corridor. Regardless of party affiliation or whether they are independent or bishops, the Members I have come across—in Committee or Joint Committee work, or in delegations when I was previously in the House are—good people who want to see the nation benefit and our country thrive and see good politics and good governance. The characterisation is often unfair and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire belittles his own position as a Member of this House.
Stephen Gethins
I intervene merely because my hon. Friend is not here to defend himself, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. There are a number of fine people in the House of Lords and I have worked with them in a number of ways. However, democratic accountability should be at the heart. Labour promised to scrap the House of Lords in the first ever manifesto it produced over a century ago, so although his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) might have been waiting 1,100 years, we have been waiting 110 years for Labour to fulfil its commitment to electing and giving them that democratic mandate.
Gareth Snell
Without getting drawn into the debate on the rights and wrongs, I will say that if the Scottish National party had wanted an elected second Chamber, it could have had one in the Scottish Parliament but chose not to. There are things about the way in which our democracy works that mean the SNP Members come down here simply to have a pop at this place for their grievance politics in Scotland. Frankly, if the SNP spent more time thinking about how it could help the nation rather than its petty nationalism, we might be in a better place as a country and things would be better in Scotland.
In a point relating to amendment 1, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) rightly pointed out, Lord Grocott has proposed this Bill in the House of Lords numerous times over the past 20 years. He has tried to get to the point when there could have been an opportunity over the past two decades for Members who are here by virtue of the hereditary principle to be phased out over time. At every opportunity, it was blocked by the Conservative party; at every opportunity, it was talked out.
When the Bill was introduced in this place, first by David Hanson and then by John Spellar, the Conservative party opposed it, saying that the principle was wrong and there was not enough reform. I therefore feel that it is slightly disingenuous now to propose something that the Conservatives have opposed for the past two decades as their solution to the problem that they themselves created by not accepting it in the first place. It is slightly unfair, and it is a categorisation of their own politics that they seek to find ways to frustrate the Bill because they have no option for themselves.
On the somewhat spuriously suggestion that this is a way of neutering opposition in the other place, the number of Conservative peers, even after the expulsion of the hereditaries, will still make them the largest party in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out. The Labour party is currently the third largest party in the House of Lords, after the Cross Benchers. Even after the removal of some of the Cross Benchers who sit by virtue of a hereditary peerage, they will still only be slightly behind the Labour party. The idea that this will remove any form of opposition in the upper House is simply incorrect—it does not hold water.
The other idea that good scrutiny of legislation in the House of Lords can somehow happen only by virtue of the application of the minds of the hereditary peers is equally incorrect. Some of the best challenges to Government in this Parliament have come from Members of the House of Lords who have been appointed. It does not necessarily mean they are less likely to be independent because they are not there by virtue of a hereditary peerage. I genuinely do not see that for myself. The times when I have sat and watched the House of Lords, because their sitting hours are later, I have seen that the challenges that come from the bishops, the Cross Benchers and the members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, regardless of how they reached there, have been thoughtful and well considered, and long may that continue. I do not think that is diminished by virtue of the fact that we say to a small group of those who have a right in the House of Lords, “Your route into this place was an irregularity, and we are seeking to sort that.”
The shadow Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), disputed my figure. There have been 21 appointments to the House of Lords who have had the Conservative Whip. I appreciate that some of those have been resignation honours from previous Prime Ministers—and there were a few to get through because of the way their party operated—but there have been 21. At any point, the former Prime Ministers could have said, “We would like to consider giving those to members of the hereditary group who are not able to continue.” There have been a number of appointees who were not part of a resignation honours list, and again, the Conservative party did not take the opportunity to say to Earl Howe, “We are going to make sure that you can continue.”
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. Does he think that, given the policy they have embarked on, the Government should have a duty to protect Cross Benchers who have no party representation in this House? The hereditary peers who are Cross Benchers will otherwise go by the wayside. Would he at least support his Government doing that?
Gareth Snell
It is hard to overestimate the valuable contribution that the Cross-Bench peers make to the House of Lords, not least the number of retired members of the judiciary who come in to fulfil certain judicial or pseudo-judicial responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman probably has an element of a point that I would almost agree with: there is a conversation to be had about how we ensure that the Cross Benchers continue to have representation that reflects the breadth of the country and the skills that Parliament needs. Obviously, there is a role for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which can make recommendations for new Cross-Bench peers. How that works going forward I am sure is something that will be considered.
Again, there will still be 151 Cross-Bench peers even after the number of hereditary peers have been expelled from the House. That is a large number of peers, all of whom bring an expertise to the House that should be looked at. If there are new Cross-Bench peers to come in, I am sure that the commission will make that recommendation.
The idea that the House of Lords will somehow cease to function by virtue of the immediate abolition of hereditary peers does not hold water or make sense. We should simply say, “We are going to have a clean break. Thank you very much for your service—we appreciate it. If you wish to come back to politics or to Parliament, you can be nominated to the House of Lords for a life peerage, or you can seek election to this House.” If the Conservative party really wanted to ensure that some of those hereditary peers were able to come back to this place, they could say, “We’re going to make sure you are our candidates” for the 25 safest Conservative seats—if there are 25 safe seats for any party these days. It could say, “You can make a valuable contribution to politics in a way that gives you a seat in one of the two legislatures.” There are ways of doing it that simply do not allow for the withering of the situation that we have.
Andrew Rosindell
What I am puzzled about is this: how does the abolition of these great people who have come to this place with a duty of service that they have inherited and served the country benefit the people of Stoke-on-Trent? How will our constituents benefit by this change to our constitution? Does the hon. Member really think that this country will be so much better for having got rid of our hereditary peers, who have such a great duty of service to our country?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman poses a fair question. I would argue that having a ringfenced number of seats reserved almost exclusively for white men sends the wrong message to my constituents. I fully accept that there are Members of the House of Lords at whom my constituents can look and think, “They have done something spectacular with their lives.” [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire jumps up, there are Members who have come in through the by-election process after making good contributions in their careers, and their being there does bring something, but I do not believe that my constituents would be diminished or harmed by their expulsion. I cannot see any justification for keeping 92 people in this legislature by virtue of appointments made many decades ago.
Gareth Snell
It is a small element, as the hon. Gentleman says, but by that same logic, the removal of that small element will not have a big impact. We are grasping at straws.
Let me address the suggestion that this is an attack on the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is probably one Member of the House who understands quite well the role of the Earl Marshal. He will continue to be an officer of the House of Lords, and the role will still be intrinsically linked to the families of the Duke of Norfolk, but he will simply not be able to vote in Divisions or participate in debates. I do not believe therefore that this is necessarily an attack on the hereditary principle per se; it is simply about saying that there is no place for the hereditary principle in a modern-day democracy.
I will move on the point about giving out titles as rewards. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the Conservative party’s aims, not least because the monarch, as the font of all honour, can create whatever titles and styles he likes, with whatever caveats he likes, through letters patent. It does not immediately mean that one has to become a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of having a life peerage if the letters patent say something different. I am sure that the shadow Paymaster General is well read up on the Wensleydale decision of 1856, when a life peerage was created for Sir James Parke but it was specified that he could not be a Member of the House of Lords. The principle of establishing titles and styles for reward and recognition without tying them to seats in the Lords already exists, so the amendment is entirely unnecessary.
My final point, which has not been the subject of much discussion—as it is not a party knockabout issue—relates to Lords amendment 4, on the capacity of colleagues in the House of Lords. It is clear that many Members of the House of Lords have served our country and their communities well, but some find themselves in old age and declining health. They deserve the dignity of being allowed to retire from that place without it becoming a story of capacity. The amendment, which was accepted by the Government and the Opposition in the Lords, is an important way of recognising that we can make small changes every day to the House of Lords, as the previous Government did on the ability to retire and take a leave of absence. This Government are ensuring that resignation can be granted for Members subject to power of attorney—that is an important change and I hope that it gets cross-party support.
To summarise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said, this legislation has been a long time coming and is part of the evolution of the House of Lords. The Opposition amendments do nothing to improve the Bill; they would simply slow the pace of reform and add bits that do nothing more than frustrate the passage of the Bill when it goes back to the other place. I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the Government in bringing dignity to those who need to retire with capacity issues, so that we can progress with building a more modern and successful democracy.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With the leave of the House, I will close the debate, and it is a privilege to close this wide-ranging and well-natured debate. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has been treated somewhat unfairly in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) accused him of a lack of energy, but he was completely wrong. The contribution from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may have been ill-judged, but it was certainly energetic; we can give him that. His contribution was, in some ways, brave—some would even say it had a chutzpah about it—when he accused me of trashing precedent while simultaneously trashing precedent himself.
Alex Burghart
We are under no obligation to support Government legislation in the Commons.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me just repeat that point to the hon. Gentleman, because it is important. He claims to respect precedent and the rights of Parliament, but the position he takes in supporting Lords amendment 1 runs a coach and horses through that.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Fine, let me put it this way: the hon. Gentleman is supporting the position that his peers are taking, which is in breach of that convention.
I will give the hon. Gentleman another chance, because he is trying to put a defence up on that particular precedent. He supported the closing down of Parliament in 2019, and now he sits here lecturing me on precedent. I think it is best not to take any lectures from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on that.
There was an opportunity for the Opposition this afternoon. They did not have to join in with the filibustering tactics that have been used, with tens of hours of debate on this very narrow Bill. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could today have not joined in, but he will lead his troops through the Lobby to continue to try to block these reforms. That is what this is all about. It is not, as he pretended, about trying to improve the Bill. It is not that those on the Tory Front Bench are secretly in favour of radical reform, and this is not radical enough for them. They are trying to wreck this Bill, and that is exactly what he will do as he goes through the Lobby with his troops later.
Paul Holmes
The Minister may remember that at the beginning of the debate, I asked him to bear in mind the circumstances of some of the people who have given their life to this place over the last 25 or 30 years and are not in the best financial health. We are not in “Downton Abbey”—the film had its premiere last night. If he makes the decision to get rid of hereditary peers immediately, what support will be put in place by the House authorities, which I know he would want to work with, and the Government to ensure that those people are looked after? May I push him to consider the more practical proposal of waiting until the end of the Session, rather than immediately getting rid of the hereditary peers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is not my decision; it was the decision of the British people at the last general election in supporting our manifesto. If the Bill gets on to the statute book, hereditary peers will leave at the end of this parliamentary Session. I repeat the point we have heard throughout the debate: there is no barrier to them becoming life peers. Indeed, there is no barrier to them standing to become Members of this House if they wish to continue their public service.
Sir Oliver Dowden
I thank the Minister for his generosity. He frequently cites the Labour party manifesto, which did include this provision in relation to the abolition of hereditary peers. However, it also included a provision in relation to a mandatory retirement age. Why has he chosen to bring forward the abolition of hereditary peers but not wait until he has resolved the position in relation to the retirement age? Surely there is only one reason for that, which is that it benefits the Labour party politically to remove Conservative hereditary peers immediately, and it is of less political benefit to the Labour party to have a mandatory 80-year-old retirement age.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The manifesto was clear that the reform would be staged, and that this would be the immediate first step. The Government remain in favour of a House of Lords that is more representative of the nations and regions, and this is the first step. As the Leader of the House of Lords announced, a Select Committee will then look at retirement age, and indeed at participation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made the point, which I repeated, that this is not a personal issue but an issue of principle. I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), welcomes the Bill as a first step, and she also spoke about the appointment process. Indeed, over recent months the Government have ensured that when people are selected for a place in the House of Lords there is now an explanation or citation. We always had a citation when people were awarded honours, but we did not have one for those nominated for a place in the House of Lords. That has now been changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) set out powerfully that Lords amendment 1, which concerns the abolition of hereditary by-elections, has been put forward time and again by Lord Grocott, and on every single occasion it was blocked by the Conservatives. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), a regular sparring partner of mine, accused me of being a bit unfair to the Conservatives in the 20th century. Life peerages were of course introduced in the late 1950s, but it is certainly the case that the Conservatives have blocked every opportunity to abolish the hereditary principle, and that is exactly what they are doing again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a powerful speech about the central purpose of the Bill and the Government’s position on the amendments. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire made his characteristic contribution to the debate, and I would agree with the point he made about filibustering in the other place on this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) made well the point that even after this change, the Conservatives will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. I then come to the speech by the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) who seemed, I think, to be simultaneously arguing for maintaining the hereditary peers and for radical reform. When he talked about a parliamentarian with the “attention span” of a TikTok video, I thought he meant the shadow Justice Secretary for a minute. We have heard the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) make a comparison with North Korea, but the hon. Member for Windsor made a comparison with Iran. This Bill is quintessentially British. It is about British democracy. It is about putting an argument to the electorate last July, and then putting that into practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made the powerful case that this is about principle, and about there not being a series of places in our legislature that are reserved for people by accident of birth. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who I am sure the whole House will wish well for the Great North Run, made a powerful case for the abolition of the hereditary principle and the position of the Bill. I also say a real “thank you” to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who has made a powerful case for change throughout every stage of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons.
This has been a perfectly reasonable debate—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Before I conclude my remarks I will certainly give way.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way, as I feel that he is drawing to the end of his comments. One thing he has not discussed in his round-up of the debate is ministerial pay. I appreciate the remarks that he made at the start, and that he does not believe this is the right way or place to do that, but does he accept in principle that in future the Government should find a legal mechanism for ensuring that all Ministers of the Crown, regardless of the House in which they sit, are paid?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will just come to the other points that we are raising. I have made clear that Lords amendment 1 guts the purpose of the Bill, which is why the Government oppose it.
On the other amendments, first I am pleased with and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on amendment 4, on the introduction of the power of attorney. I think that the whole House accepts that there are people who wish to retire, and that is a dignity that we should give them. We all appreciate that. On the other two points, I do not regard the creation of a new, separate honour as necessary or worthwhile—I had this exchange earlier with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). We already have an honours system that recognises outstanding contributions to our society. I think that we should maintain that link between the title and doing work in our legislature.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has made a couple of times about ministerial pay and Ministers carrying out roles. The point that I would make to him, however, is that that requires an amendment. If he wants to make that argument and have a debate, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but the mechanism in the Bill will not have the impact that I think he is seeking to have in that respect.
To conclude—I am concluding not just this afternoon’s debate, but tens of hours of debate in the other place—we are moving towards a House of Lords that is fair, open and truly representative of the nation it serves, a House where expertise is recognised and not inherited, where policy is shaped by merit and not by bloodlines. I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
BBC Monitoring Service
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Just over four decades ago, I first became aware of the BBC Monitoring service, or BBCM. The year was 1982, and a very different Labour party, led by veteran unilateralist Michael Foot, was committed to abandoning the British strategic nuclear deterrent unconditionally. I was involved in a campaign against that, together with the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and a brilliant colleague of ours, Councillor—as he then was—Tony Kerpel.
A fellow researcher handed me the transcript of a Radio Moscow interview with the national organiser of Britain’s leading disarmament campaign group, who was visiting the USSR, as one does. When asked why the official Soviet Peace Committee supported the Soviet Government—unlike her organisation, which opposed the UK Government—she revealingly replied:
“Well, obviously, because the Soviet Government is in favour of peace, and this makes a big difference.”
That was on Radio Moscow on 7 June 1982, for the historians among us.
The source of such telling material was a publication called Summary of World Broadcasts, which was produced by BBCM and packed with invaluable insights into the propaganda campaigns of our adversaries and those who consorted with them. Founded in 1939 to give speedy access to foreign media and propaganda output, the monitoring service was funded for its first 70 years by an annual Government grant. This was as it should be: the Government were paying for a service for which they were the main customer and consumer.
Certainly, there were periods of famine and feast. Reductions in the grant after the end of the second world war limited the frequency of the Summary of World Broadcasts, which resumed daily publication only in 1959, but the principle of the annual grant held firm and there was further Government investment in computerisation and new buildings at the Caversham Park headquarters of BBCM in the second half of the 1980s. For a time, the grant was split between the Foreign Office, the Defence Ministry, the Cabinet Office and the World Service budgets, but a 2005 report reinstated the single Government revenue stream. Cuts and redundancies nevertheless took place in 2006-07 under Tony Blair, with worse to follow under Cameron and Clegg in 2010.
That was the year when the coalition Government decreed that the BBC World Service, and the Monitoring service too, would be funded in future from the corporation’s licence fee income. Eventually, direct Government funding for the World Service had to be restored, amounting to about one third of its annual income. BBCM, however, remains disproportionately dependent on the licence fee, plus a certain amount of income from its commercial contracts. Given that the BBC claims to have seen a 30% reduction of its overall income in real terms since that fateful year of 2010, it is hardly surprising that both the World Service and BBCM have suffered financially.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Would the right hon. Member agree that in a world where autocracies are in the ascendency and false news spreads like the speed of light, Government funding for services that bring truth to the world has never been more important?
Sir Julian Lewis
I could not agree more. May I take the opportunity to thank the hon. Gentleman again for the excellent debate on the BBC World Service, which he led on 26 June, if I remember correctly, and which gave me the idea to bring forward the subject of BBC Monitoring separately?
Over very many years, BBC Monitoring had built up the closest conceivable relationship with its United States counterpart, known as Open Source Enterprise, or OSE. Indeed, the two organisations were based on alternate floors of the Caversham Park headquarters, dividing between them the coverage of global broadcasting to the enormous benefit of both countries in the transatlantic alliance. This was the nerve centre of world-beating open source intelligence, yet the BBC decided to evict OSE and sell the Caversham estate.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making such an excellent speech. Caversham Park sits in my constituency, and it was a wonderful facility. I pay tribute to those who worked there over many years, breaking vital news stories and providing information to the Foreign Office, such as the initial news reports of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and many other similar events that were only able to be recorded because of the amazing talents of the linguists and journalists based at the facility, which has sadly now been mothballed and is due to be sold to a developer. Would the right hon. Member like to comment on the role of those staff?
Sir Julian Lewis
I am extremely grateful for that intervention. I am sure that the staff of BBC Monitoring, both present and past, will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has rightly expressed for them.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. I conducted my PhD research at the BBC national archives centre, which was within Caversham Park, and every lunch time I would have lunch with the extraordinary linguists who occupied the building that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) has just described. The loss of BBC Monitoring—if that were indeed to come about—would be a considerable national loss. It represents an incredibly important part of not only our security past but our security future—for the reasons that have been mentioned previously, such as the rise of disinformation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to preserve these institutions, because so often we do not know what we have got until it is gone?
Sir Julian Lewis
Yes, indeed. If ever something encapsulated the concept of soft power, and indeed buttressed and underpinned some of the agencies that have to delve from more secret sources for information, this is an example of that.
Sir Julian Lewis
I must say it is gratifying in an end-of-day Adjournment debate on a Thursday early evening to have so many people so keen to intervene, including the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).
Chris Vince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene and for his wonderful introduction to my intervention. He mentioned the importance of soft power, which we spoke a great deal about in the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Does he agree that it is not only a case of not knowing what we have got until it is gone, but that, if we were to lose the BBC Monitoring service as well as the BBC World Service—not that we are suggesting that, of course—it would be very difficult to get it back, having realised the error we had made? On the BBC World Service, I will mention the conversation that he and I had in that debate about how, when the service was pulled out of particular countries, it was sometimes replaced with the propaganda that we are trying to avoid.
Sir Julian Lewis
Absolutely. The only good thing to be said about the propaganda of one’s adversaries is that sometimes, unwittingly, it gives us an insight into their plans and a forewarning of their evil intent. Let us ensure that we preserve the crown jewels and that we do not rely simply on fluctuations in licence fee income for that necessary task.
I have said that the Caversham estate was to be sold off, despite the amazing integration that existed there with the American counterpart of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which is now known more regularly as the OSE. It was therefore no wonder that the Defence Committee decided to entitle its December 2016 report “Open Source Stupidity: The Threat to the BBC Monitoring Service”. That was a pun on open source intelligence—and for those interested, it is HC 748, and it is still in print.
The then Defence Committee Chairman, whom modesty prevents me from identifying, pointed out—this is a long quote, but it is worthwhile—that:
“The Coalition Government was warned, in the strongest possible terms, not to leave the BBC Monitoring service unprotected by ending its ring–fenced annual grant and transferring this minor financial burden to the licence–fee payer. By doing so, it gave the BBC a free hand to inflict successive rounds of cuts, now culminating in the loss of the specialised and dedicated Caversham headquarters.
The vast increase in open source information in the recent past makes it one of the few tools still left in the Government’s arsenal which can provide almost real time information and analysis on global developments. To allow the BBC to change and shape it in a different direction is in contravention of UK national interest. It is especially bewildering when you consider the annual cost of BBC Monitoring is around £25 million.
The decision to evict BBC Monitoring’s US counterpart—Open Source Enterprise—from its UK base at Caversham Park and break the physical link between the two is short–sighted. The BBC’s strategy for BBC Monitoring will downgrade our contribution to open source intelligence sharing between the UK and the US at a time when European nations must demonstrate to President–elect Trump”—
as he then was, for the first time—
“that we are committed to paying our way in the fields of defence and security. As one of our witnesses said, ‘this is the height of folly’.”
That was a long quote, but it was true then and it is true today.
Sir Julian Lewis
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger).
Alex Ballinger
The right hon. Member is delivering an excellent speech. As the Defence Committee did in 2016, the Foreign Affairs Committee is now conducting an inquiry into disinformation, which covers many of the same areas that he discusses. Does he agree that the increasing spread of disinformation, increasingly in countries that are non-English-speaking but have a real geopolitical significance for the UK, makes the BBC Monitoring service even more important today than it was in 2016?
Sir Julian Lewis
I agree entirely, and before I give way for the next intervention, I will read what I had just been about to say.
The report’s main conclusion was that the Government should reinstate their previous model of funding BBC Monitoring through a ringfenced grant in aid, rather than allowing the funding to come from the licence fee. As a non-partisan, cross-party body, I doubt if today’s Defence Committee would take a radically different view. Indeed, we have just heard from the Foreign Affairs Committee representative that that view still has a great deal of validity.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, even if he chose my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) before me. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the report, which I have in front of me. I note that only three colleagues who were on the Committee in 2016 are still in this House. The fact that he makes these points now, as he did almost 10 years ago, speaks to the challenge we face, as well as to the threats to our ability to tackle the geopolitical challenges to which he has referred and how we will be found wanting in that effort if we do not get this right, and get it right soon.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is very gratifying to an old timer like me to see a fresh generation of serious-minded hon. and right hon. Members from all parties so united on this common theme in the national interest. I will have to race on a bit now so as not to cut into the Minister’s time too much.
So far I have focused in large part on the negatives, as the House has heard, but all is not a picture of doom and gloom. Despite the substantial redundancies of 2016-17 after the reduction in licence fee funding and the closure of Caversham Park, an 11-year customer service agreement was signed with the Government, covering the period 2017 to 2027 inclusive. A business development team also succeeded in widening the commercial customer base and lessening, to some extent, the dependence on the licence fee.
Those in charge at BBC Monitoring are in no doubt of the importance of their mission. They point out in a most helpful briefing document that they provided to me that in today’s environment of intensifying information warfare, weaponised narratives and global instability, the value of BBC Monitoring’s work is more crucial than ever. They note:
“The global media landscape has undergone a profound transformation, driven by the rapid expansion of social media, the democratisation of content creation, and the accelerating capabilities of generative AI. These shifts have dramatically increased the volume and velocity of disinformation… In response, BBC Monitoring has evolved its editorial strategy, moving beyond translation and summarisation to deliver expert, evidence-based analysis. The introduction of data specialists has enabled the production of interactive maps, graphics, and other tools that help users navigate complex information environments.”
BBCM has expanded its coverage of Chinese, Russian and Iranian media influence operations, of jihadism, of climate change, of water and energy security, and of migration—all issues that are central to our national interests and foreign policy. Its products underpin the work of BBC journalism, particularly when reporting on countries where direct access is restricted or prohibited.
There is, in short, no question about the irreplaceable value inherent in the BBC Monitoring service. By securing this debate and sharing the contents of this speech in advance with the Minister, as I have, I aim to give the Government an opportunity to endorse its vital work tonight and perhaps shine a little light on some relevant aspects of that.
First, on its budget, at the time of the December 2016 Defence Committee report, the annual costs of BBCM were known, as I said earlier, to be a modest £25 million. What is its budget today, and what percentages of its income derive from the licence fee and from each of its other main funding sources? If the Minister cannot be too specific this evening, I would be grateful if he might write to me in more detail.
Secondly, now that the US Open Source Enterprise organisation is—most regrettably—no longer co-located with BBC Monitoring in the United Kingdom, what is the nature of the residual relationship between the two organisations? Do they no longer together cover the globe, freely exchanging their respective products, as in the days of Caversham Park? Does BBCM even see the OSE product? Does it have to pay for it and, if so, how much income does BBC Monitoring receive for supplying its output to the United States?
Thirdly, I understand that BBCM has taken some strides in introducing artificial intelligence into its modus operandi. How far does it expect that process to go, and will human expertise and judgment remain integral to its monitoring work?
Fourthly, while the restoration of an annual Government grant would be by far the most secure funding model, in the absence of that, is there any danger of BBC Monitoring being cut loose from the World Service organisation and farmed out insecurely to BBC Sounds, as has previously been mooted?
Finally, with a new agreement having to be negotiated with the Government before the expiry of the existing one in two years’ time, will the Minister please undertake to set out specific details of the target quantities of actual monitoring outputs—not to be conflated with analysis—specified under the existing agreement, and the extent to which those targets have, or have not, been achieved? Only in that way shall we know if our vital open source intelligence operation truly has the resources it needs.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this important debate and sharing his remarks with me in advance. I can assure him that things have changed a lot since Michael Foot. This Labour Government are proud to support our nuclear deterrent and invest in our defence. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s extensive and long-standing expertise on this issue and many other related issues, and I am grateful for all the contributions.
I can confirm that the Government share the right hon. Member’s view that BBC Monitoring is a vital national asset, as many colleagues across the House have expressed. Indeed, I declare an interest personally because I have been a substantial user of its services in the past and am an avid listener of the BBC World Service, so I can truly attest to its incredible services and the work of its staff. For over 80 years, it has provided indispensable insight into world events, shaping our understanding of the global landscape, and high-quality and independent analysis, supporting that integrity of information worldwide, which lots of Members touched upon. Of course, those contribute to the Government’s wider efforts to combat misinformation, disinformation and harmful narratives produced by malign actors, hostile states and others around the world. It also provides a crucial insight into the international media landscape, and that informs our national security work, our foreign policy and our ability to take action on the world stage.
We must be clear about BBC Monitoring’s present value. As has been referred to, it has unique linguistic skills and deep regional expertise to fulfil the task of analysing media from across the globe. Whether that is state broadcast, social media, local news sites or official statements, it provides that texture, nuance and ground truth that enrich the quality of the evidence underpinning policy making for us and many others. It also helps us understand the deeper messages that Governments and others, but also their own people and audiences, are saying around the world. The value of that work should not be underestimated and, indeed, it is valued by colleagues in not only the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, as well as many others.
Of course, BBC Monitoring’s value is not confined to Whitehall; it is also an internal radar for the BBC itself. It identifies emerging narratives, spots developing stories, provides BBC News and the World Service with early warning, and helps them get ahead of the curve with their reporting and deeper conceptual analysis, so this is a symbiotic relationship. Of course, it also supports commercial partners and others with their insight and analysis. We fully endorse that service.
Although the BBC is responsible for the staffing, administration and editorial direction of the service, it is provided under a specific agreement—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—between the BBC and the Government, enabling collaborative discussions about the Government’s priorities for BBC Monitoring to consider in its wider prioritisation. That provides us with the assurance that the service continues to evolve in line with the changing media environment and the need to understand it, and ensures that it continues to provide value for the licence fee payer and the nation.
The Cabinet Office is the lead Department, managing the relationship, while the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides ministerial oversight. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman noted, the service is funded through the licence fee as part of the BBC’s public service remit. I am happy to write to him further on some of the details of the current funding arrangements. As I have mentioned, it derives some revenue from commercial customers and partnerships as well. It has many customers, including non-governmental organisations, intergovernmental and research bodies, media organisations, think-tanks and businesses. He asked how much the monitoring service costs the BBC. It has a range of funding streams, as I have set out, and ultimately it is for the BBC to approve the budget.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship with Open Source Enterprise. I can confirm that the service maintains a strong and highly effective information-sharing partnership with OSE under an annually reviewed memorandum. The two organisations continue to work together to cover the globe and fill in their respective gaps. They share expertise and collaborate on technological innovation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the future. We want to see BBC Monitoring thrive. A key part of that is ensuring that the organisation is not standing still. It is embracing new technology to enhance its capabilities, including by integrating AI into its workflows, in accordance of course with BBC permitted usage and protocols. That will see staff using cutting-edge tools to sift through vast quantities of data at speed, allowing analysts to focus on providing the high-level insight and nuanced judgment that human expertise alone can supply. That will mean a combination of human insight and AI. This is a rapidly changing field, and BBC Monitoring is testing AI tools to help journalists keep track of what is being said in different outlets—that follows BBC rules and is designed to give a broad overview of the landscape that they are reporting on—but I should reiterate that decisions will still be made by people, not by machines. Indeed, BBC staff undertake mandatory AI training courses.
At the same time, BBC Monitoring has chosen to focus on providing deeper insights and context in its work. It now produces fewer reports but each carries greater analytical value. In 2024, it produced 78,832 reports; that is a reduction on the original target but reflects a deliberate and sensible shift away from basic translation and summarising, and towards analysis that delivers real impact. Having used that service before, I can say that it really does provide critical insight. Reports do not always draw a clear line between monitoring and analysis, recognising that both are part of the same effort to understand narratives. I am pleased to see those advancements and I am sure that they will continue in the years ahead.
The existing charter is due to expire at the end of 2027, and that will be an opportunity, as has been discussed elsewhere, to consider a wide range of issues. That will ensure that the BBC has a sustainable funding model for all its important work, including BBC Monitoring. My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have made it clear that they are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will think creatively about all the options to future-proof our national broadcaster.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and congratulate him and his husband on their recent marriage.
I am just reading “The UK’s new approach to Africa: summary of consultation”. Point 47 states:
“We also heard that parts of the UK’s soft power appeal can be intangible.”
May I invite the Minister to confirm that both the World Service and the Monitoring service are, in his view, key parts of UK soft power?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree that they are. As I said, I am an admirer of them, and they are admired around the globe—I hear that repeatedly on my travels, as do ministerial colleagues. And I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks on my marriage.
I want to be clear. Of course I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the licence fee process—that is for other colleagues—or make specific comments about future funding arrangements today, but I can give the House and the right hon. Member for New Forest East this assurance: he should be in no doubt about our high regard for BBC Monitoring. Its value and readiness for the future is understood at the highest levels, and we will continue to work with the BBC, DCMS and others across Government to ensure that its work continues and that we are all able to benefit from its unique expertise and analysis.
Question put and agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “for England and Wales”.
The amendment would secure that Clause 1 applies to a pension scheme for local government workers for Scotland, as well as a scheme for local government workers in England and Wales. Clause 1 does not extend to Northern Ireland (see Clause 100).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 8, 10 to 12 and 16 to 24.
Torsten Bell
Before I turn to the amendments, I should briefly outline the reform of the local government pension scheme, for which chapter 1 provides the legislative underpinning. The LGPS is the largest pension scheme in the UK, with £400 billion of assets under management, projected to rise to almost £1 trillion by 2040. However, I think it is a matter of cross-party consensus that the LGPS has not realised its full potential, not least because it is too fragmented.
The first chapter of the Bill sets out the legislative basis for reform to modernise the LGPS’s investment framework and governance arrangements, setting robust new standards that all pools must meet, including Financial Conduct Authority authorisation, the capacity and expertise to manage 100% of their partner authorities’ assets, and the ability to deliver on local investment mandates. As part of the reforms, the LGPS will move from eight pools to six. We have set a deadline for the new pool partnerships to be agreed in principle by the end of this month, with new shareholder arrangements in place by March 2026.
The clauses in chapter 1 would mean that by this time next year we will see a world-class LGPS, made up of large pools of professionally managed capital, held to account by authorities who have confidence in robust and transparent governance structures, and who together are delivering the best value for members. I remind the Committee that LGPS members’ benefits are guaranteed in statute, and nothing that we discuss today will affect any of those benefits.
These amendments will extend the LGPS provisions to Scotland. There is a wide range of amendments, but they all have the same objective: to take the matters relating to England and Wales and ensure that those are provided for in the case of Scotland. The Government are making this provision following a formal request from the Scottish Government, and I have written again to the Scottish Government this morning for the legislative consent motion that they will need to put in train to go alongside it. Amendments will be needed in respect of clauses 1, 2, 4 and 7 to give effect to that objective, and that is what the Government amendments in this group do. I commend them to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is great to be starting what I hope will be quite a quick canter through today’s work, Sir Christopher. The Opposition welcome the broad grain of this entire Bill; it seeks to do a lot of very useful things in the pension industry across the UK. We have some contentious points, but those will not come up today.
Regarding clause 1, we welcome the creation of asset pool companies. These are sensible and pragmatic steps towards modernising the local government pension scheme, and much of the work had already been done under the previous Government. Consolidating funds represents a responsible approach that should deliver more effective management and investment of pension assets. The LGPS, as we have heard, is among the largest pension schemes in the UK, with 6.7 million members and £391 billion of capital. Before pooling, of course, it was 86 separate local authorities, which caused huge inefficiency, inequality of opportunities and, in some cases, poorer outcomes for pension beneficiaries.
I should mention at this point, Sir Christopher, that I am a member of the LGPS and also that, as a councillor on Forest of Dean district council, I was responsible for looking after some of this activity in terms of pension management. It was not an efficient way of doing things, so pooling is an incredibly good idea. We welcome the Government’s continuing our work to make these pension funds work more efficiently and deliver better returns for members, and ultimately we all want to see improved returns and lower employer contributions. Small funds, whether in local government or elsewhere, are rarely fit for purpose in the global investment environment.
We have some concerns. The broad framing of the powers contained in chapter 1, clause 1 could allow for the mandation of certain investments by Government. Pools should be investing in line with the investment approach set out by their underlying asset owners in order to deliver against the fiduciary duties of LGPS funds. Governments should not take powers that would erode fiduciary duty.
There are concerns about the costs of the Government’s decision to reduce the number of asset pools from eight to six. This is an administrative cost. We have heard from one council, Wiltshire, which is one of 21 LGPS funds in England now looking for a new pooling partner. Jennifer Devine, head of the Wiltshire pension fund, has said that the cost of closing its asset pool could come to as much as £100 million. There will be some costs incurred, but, none the less, the general thrust of the whole process is one that we support and we certainly would not stand in the way of these amendments.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and echoing the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill. We heard in evidence that a lot of the industry is playing catch-up and is about 15 years behind those who are best in class. As Liberal Democrats, we are keen to make sure that we are supporting particularly those who are more challenged in being able to save or to make the right decisions, and that we use what levers we can to tackle issues such as climate change and cleaning up our environment. We look forward to working with colleagues on this Committee.
On the local government pension schemes and the pots, we welcome the direction of travel. However, for us it is about making sure that we keep local links to communities, and driving positive change through that investment in our local communities is absolutely essential. I look forward to the debates over the next few weeks.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I declare an interest as a holder of deferred membership of a local government pension scheme in Scotland, which will come into scope should the Government amendments go through, as I imagine they will. First, I thank the Government for working with the Scottish Government to make these changes and for taking the decision to agree with the Scottish Government’s request for these changes to be made. It is appreciated.
While I am on thank yous, the people who manage local government pension schemes are managing an incredibly significant amount of money and are ensuring that benefits are provided to many millions of people in those schemes. The hard work they do to steward those funds appropriately cannot be overestimated, so I say thank you to all the trustees who take that action on behalf of so many of us. Those working in the public sector tend to get a lower salary than they would in the private sector, but they often get access to a defined-benefit pension scheme or a career-average pension scheme, which is better than many people in the private sector get. There is a bit of give and take there.
On Tuesday, we heard from the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board and also from one of the pension schemes. There was a commitment that came forward in the evidence to ensuring trustees are appropriately trained—I am not for a second saying that they are not appropriately trained right now, but we must ensure that level of training is provided when they have many other competing demands on their time. It is important that the Government ensure the correct monitoring, evaluation and also support of those organisations, so that if new training is required—for example, if environmental, social and governance provisions change, or decisions about where it is best to invest funds change—the Government commit to ensuring that trustees are given all the training they need. I believe that all pension trustees have a difficult job, but particularly those managing local government pension schemes, who are often local councillors—a task that, I know, is not a part-time job and is incredibly busy.
The other concern raised on Tuesday, and which was just mentioned by my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Torbay, is about the locality of the decisions made. It is important that the pooling of resources means more investment in important and key projects than would result from a smaller organisation. Hopefully, the reduction in administrative costs will ensure that those schemes are significantly more efficient, but I am keen that we do not lose the local voice within the pension schemes that we have now.
The case was made very eloquently on Tuesday that, while pension schemes take into account value for money—what we would have called best value in local government in Scotland—in decision making, they should ensure that they are not supporting projects that the community are absolutely up in arms about, because so many of their members will live in that community. Scheme members need that guaranteed return, but they also need their communities to be nice places for them to live.
I am slightly concerned that, with pooling, the ability for local projects to be put forward could potentially be lost. Although I am not asking for any specific changes, I would ask that the Government keep an eye on that. Should there be significant numbers of smaller projects that are not being supported because of the changes that previously might have been supported, the Government should consider whether they need to take action to ensure that those voices are better heard and that those smaller projects still have the opportunity for investment.
Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this, Chair. I am assuming that we have also spoken on the clause stand part and are unlikely to debate that again at the end; I have therefore made most of my general comments here rather than particularly specific ones on the amendments.
Torsten Bell
I thank everyone who has spoken. I am grateful for the welcome for the Bill as a whole, for this chapter and for the amendments that particularly relate to Scotland. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest pointed out, this Bill builds on progress that was put in train over the last decade, and I am glad to see that. It is only because of that progress that we are now able to accelerate quite significantly.
Questions were raised about mandation. I want to be absolutely clear that questions about asset strategy will sit directly with the administering authorities, as they do today. It is for them to set out those asset allocation decisions, which are, in the end, the biggest driver of returns for members. The investment decisions sit with pools, never with Governments. We will provide clarification, if we come on to one of the amendments later, to make clear that the Government will not be directing individual investment decisions of pools; that was never the intention.
Questions were raised about the administrative costs of transition. Those do exist, as they have in previous moves towards pooling, and will obviously need to be managed sensibly, but I think we all agree that those costs are small relative to the very large savings that will come from a much less fragmented system.
Points about the importance of trustees were powerfully made, and I absolutely agree. Stronger governance reforms have already been put in place for the LGPS trustees in England and Wales, and these reforms build on that through stronger governance more generally.
I also hear the argument about local voice. As I said, the administering authorities are responsible for setting the strategy in relation to local investments. Strategic authorities, because of a Bill that was passed earlier this week, will have a requirement to collaborate with the LGPS on those local investments. I take the points that were made, and I think there is consensus on these amendments.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment made: 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”. —(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment and Amendments 10 and 11 are consequential on Amendment 7. References in Clause 1 to the Secretary of State are changed to “the responsible authority”. That term is defined by Amendment 24 to refer either to the Secretary of State (as regards England and Wales) or to the Scottish Ministers (as regards Scotland).
Torsten Bell
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(ba) enabling the responsible authority, in prescribed circumstances, to give a direction to an asset pool company specified in the direction, or to all or any of its participating scheme managers, requiring the company or scheme managers concerned—
(i) to take any steps specified in the direction with a view to enabling or securing compliance by a scheme manager with a direction requiring it to participate in, or to cease to participate in, the company (see paragraph (b)), and
(ii) to take any other steps necessary to enable or secure compliance with such a direction;”.
The amendment makes clear that scheme regulations can provide for directions to be given to prevent a direction of the kind mentioned in clause 1(2)(b) (requiring a scheme manager to participate in, or to leave, a particular asset pool company) being frustrated by a failure by the company or its participating scheme managers to take steps necessary to enable or secure compliance with its terms.
Torsten Bell
We turn now to three technical amendments concerning the powers to direct asset pools, which I mentioned in my previous speech.
Amendment 9 ensures that a pool must comply with the use of the power to direct administering authorities to join a particular asset pool, matching powers brought forward in clause 1 of the Pensions Bill. These are powers of last resort. Amendment 13 responds to feedback and removes the power to issue directions to asset pool companies relating to specific investment management decisions. It was never the Government’s intention to intervene in those decisions by pools, so we are removing that sub-paragraph to provide clarity. Amendment 14 adds a duty for Ministers to consult the affected parties before issuing directions more generally. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
In the interest of speed, I will not speak to these amendments, other than to say that we have no objection to them.
Torsten Bell
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, leave out from “company” to end of line 40 and insert
“limited by shares and registered in the United Kingdom which is established for purposes consisting of or including—
(i) managing funds or other assets for which its participating scheme managers are responsible, and
(ii) making and managing investments on behalf of those scheme managers (whether directly or through one or more collective investment vehicles),
and whose shareholders consist only of scheme managers, and”.
The amendment revises the definition of asset pool company to clarify (a) that the company should be limited by shares held by scheme managers only and registered in any part of the UK and (b) that the mandatory main purposes described in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) need not be the only purposes of the company.
The amendment revises the definition of an asset pool company to clarify that they can be established anywhere in the UK and that only LGPS administering authorities can be shareholders of those pools. The amendment also removes limits on the purposes of an asset pool company, making it clear that asset pool companies are free to provide advisory services and perform other functions in addition to their primary purpose of providing management services. The Government do not want to stifle innovation from asset pool companies as they continue to evolve from strength to strength. The amendment makes sure that that is not the case. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
I have just one question for the Minister. How are the shareholdings to be decided? Will they be determined based on the size of the investment, and how will the Government decide between councils having shareholders or contracting with asset pool companies? That is my only comment.
Torsten Bell
It is for those forming the pooling companies to agree their own arrangements. The hon. Member rightly raises the question whether people are shareholders or clients of a pool. There is only one current administering authority that is a client rather than a shareholder of a pool, so in the overwhelming majority of circumstances we are talking about shareholders. However, the legislative basis for the pooling allows for that in future, if for some reason that was the way forward that some administering authorities and pools chose. Broadly, the same picture applies to most questions in this space: we expect administering authorities and pools to work together to agree their governance arrangements, and that is what they are doing.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Asset management
Amendments made: 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out “for England and Wales”.
The amendment would secure that Clause 2 applies to scheme regulations relating to pension scheme for local government workers for Scotland, as well as scheme regulations relating to a scheme for local government workers in England and Wales. Clause 1 does not extend to Northern Ireland (see Clause 100).
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 23, at beginning insert
“in the case of a scheme for local government workers for England and Wales,”.—(Torsten Bell.)
The amendment would secure that, despite the general extension of the scope of application of Clause 2 to Scotland (see Amendment 16), subsection (2)(c) will remain of relevance only to scheme regulations relating to England and Wales.
Mark Garnier
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Scheme managers must publish a report annually on the local investments within their asset pool company.
(4B) A report published under section (4A) must include—
(a) the extent, and
(b) financial performance,
of these investments.”
This amendment provides for scheme managers to report back on the financial performance of any local investments that they might make.
Clause 2 places important requirements on pension scheme managers regarding how they manage pension funds for local government workers, requiring formulation, publication and review of investment strategies. The Bill encourages investment through asset pool companies and emphasises local investments. However, the Opposition’s key concern is that the primary purpose must remain the delivery of strong financial returns for pension funds. Those returns ultimately belong to the pension fund members, but council tax payers also have a responsibility, as they support these schemes. Investment decisions must prioritise financial performance that ensures sustainable pensions while safeguarding public funds.
Although we acknowledge that local investments can bring benefits to local communities and local economies, they should only be a secondary focus and should not compromise returns. Local investment should be considered as an additional benefit, but the overriding duty of scheme managers is to act prudently and in the best financial interests of the scheme members and taxpayers. We caution against overweighing local investment priorities if that risks undermining the long-term financial health of these pension funds. In short, financial returns must come first; local investments can follow, but must not take precedence.
Pensions UK has questioned the need for these new powers and believes that they are too far-reaching. LGPS reform is already progressing at pace, and pools and funds are collaborating in line with the direction set by the Government. Pensions UK would like to understand what specific risks the Government are seeking to manage through the introduction of these powers, and it is seeking amendments to the Bill to ensure that if these powers remain in the Bill, they will only be exercised after other avenues have been exhausted, to guard against adverse outcomes for the pools, funds and scheme members.
The Pensions Management Institute has highlighted that the administering authorities will be required to take their principal advice on their investment strategies from the pool. Given that an administering authority is required to invest all of its assets via the pool, this is a major conflict of interest and puts a significant burden on the administering authority or scheme manager to ensure that the pool is performing effectively, with no independent checks and balances.
The Bill makes it clear that co-operation with strategic authorities, such as regional combined authorities, on appropriate investments will be required. However, there is a risk of investment decisions being influenced by political and local interests. The fiduciary duty should always prevail when local investments are considered. We do not oppose the clause, but we call on scheme managers to maintain discipline in prioritising sustainable returns, with local investments as a welcome but secondary consideration.
We are considering three amendments with this clause. There is uncertainty about what qualifies as a local investment for LGPS funds, how such investments are defined and what assets or projects will meet the requirements under the new rules. In addition, we do not want to shift the focus away from the fiduciary duty of trustees to local investments that might not deliver the best-value returns on schemes. Amendment 246 provides for scheme managers to report back clearly on the financial performance of any local investments that they might make. Scheme managers at local councils should charge the asset pool companies with finding the best value.
Although we are not opposed to local investment, the focus of trustees must clearly remain on achieving best value, and the better performance of a pension fund means that local councils can already use their powers under regulations 64 and 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. Consequently, we can argue that LGPS megafunds with a focus on best returns can lead to more a fully funded council and therefore to employer contribution holidays.
Sir Christopher, would it be helpful for me to speak to the other amendments?
Mark Garnier
That is fine. It has been a few months since I last participated in a Bill Committee, Sir Christopher, so thank you for your advice.
We are not proposing to press this amendment to a vote, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond to my points and undertake to take them away and consider how advice can be given to these pool managers to ensure that the issues I have mentioned are taken into account.
The Chair
I refer Members to the Chair’s provisional selection and grouping of amendments, which should give them a guide as to which amendments are grouped and which are not.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope that the Government consider amendment 246, which would require annual reporting by LGPS asset pools on the financial performance of local investments. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a necessary safeguard that would help trustees in upholding their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and protect the interests of scheme members and the people whose pensions are at stake. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill, especially when we consider the fact that the Government’s impact assessment offers very little on LGPS consolidation. There is no reference to the impact that the de facto mandation of local investment will have on the trustees’ fiduciary duty or on members’ outcomes. I urge the Government to consider the amendment, not only for those reasons but because it would give consolidated asset pools greater clarity over whether their investments are best placed.
Steve Darling
I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] I am sure that for all of his life he has wanted to be sitting on a pensions Bill Committee on his birthday.
More seriously, when we were in desperate measures in my time as a local authority councillor in Torbay, we borrowed to invest and make money for the local authority—that was once upon a time, because it is no longer possible—so I know from experience that authorities often have to invest elsewhere in the country to get the best financial returns. Our experience in Torbay was that a lot of our investments in the south of England got in the money that we needed to keep the local authority ticking over.
I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we get the balance right. Clearly, investors would want to invest in the local area to drive economic development, but there is a need to balance that with getting positive outcomes for the pension fund. Some guidance from the Minister on how he sees that balance being struck, as the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Mid Leicestershire have alluded to, would be helpful.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to ask the Minister about the comments made on Tuesday in relation to the transparency already required of local government pension schemes. My understanding is that local government pension schemes are already pretty transparent, and that they are required to publish significant amounts of information.
On the amendment and the requirement for annual reporting, the case was made on Tuesday—I forget by who—that a particular moment in time may not give a true picture of what is going on. Investments may not provide an immediate return. In fact, pension funds are not necessarily looking for an immediate return; they are looking for a longer-term return so they can pay out to tomorrow’s pensioners as well as today’s. Pension schemes are one of the best vehicles for the patient capital that we need to be invested in the economy for it to grow, so I am little concerned that a requirement for annual reporting on specific investments may encourage short-term thinking. Can the Minister confirm what transparency regulations there are in relation to local government pension schemes and how they compare with those for other pension schemes?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to build on what the hon. Member for Torbay asked. As a former local councillor myself—I am not part of the pension scheme, I hasten to add, so I do not have an interest to declare—the bit from the evidence session that came out for me, thinking through this bit of the Bill, relates to the equivalent in treasury management. As a council, we often borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board to invest in, for example, a shopping centre to get the income from rent, business rates and so on. What safeguards or requirements will be put in place to ensure that any money spent from a pension fund goes on capital rather than revenue? I appreciate that council tax revenue increases could be used for that, but are there any safeguards to ensure that the money is not just spent and then does not exist anymore?
Torsten Bell
I will try to confine my remarks to the amendment and the points made about it; I am not going to encourage us to focus on the grouping provided. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for the amendment. I agree with him on many points he made, including that the LGPS is a success story for local investment, with authorities and pools already playing a major role in their communities. We are committed to ensuring that continues, but we also need to ensure it is done in the right way, delivering the right returns for each scheme.
As I said, every LGPS authority will be required to set out its approach to local investment in its investment strategy, providing some of the transparency that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North just set out, including their target allocation. They will need to have regard to existing local plans and priorities. I want to offer the hon. Member for Wyre Forest some reassurance—this goes directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North—that via regulations and guidance, we will already require each pool to report annually on local investments made on behalf of their authorities. The intention of the amendment will be delivered via those regulations and that guidance. On that basis, I am glad that he intends to withdraw his amendment, but I recognise his point.
On the wider question of pool advice, and whether there is a risk of pressure from strategic authorities to make investment decisions that are not consistent with their fiduciary duty, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest should see these reforms as supporting in that respect. Remember that these pools will now all be FCA-authorised. There are significantly improved governance arrangements. If anything, this should provide certainty. It should already not be the case legally, anyway, but the stronger governance arrangements will support that.
The hon. Member for Torbay rightly asked about how administering authorities and pools will think about the balance, weighing the impact on their local economy. As he will be aware, the fiduciary duties are clear about what the objective is, and the Bill is clear on the respective roles, both of the administering authorities in setting their strategic asset allocation, including to local investments, and of the pools in making those decisions, taking into account the available returns. I think that provides much of the balance that he rightly pointed out is an inevitable issue within this. I should also be clear that the LGPS will invest not just across the whole of the UK—rather than just in individual areas—as the hon. Member for Torbay talked about, but also around the world. That is what the LGPS does today and will continue to do.
Mark Garnier
I am reassured by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mark Garnier
I beg to move amendment 245, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out from first “in” to end of line 39.
This amendment changes the definition of local investment to remove the reference to the benefit of persons living or working.
This amendment runs closely with amendment 246. Amendment 245 changes the definition of local investment to remove ambiguous reference to the benefit of persons living or working in the area. It is a small, technical amendment, but it is about giving more focus on the key need to members of the fund.
Mr Bedford
At present, the Bill arguably lacks a clear definition of how the priorities of the asset pools must follow, particularly on what qualifies as local investments. Our amendment seeks to address that gap by simplifying this. Put simply, we believe that local should mean local. These asset pools should prioritise investment in large-scale projects, actively promote local growth or make tangible improvements in local infrastructure—improvements that directly benefit the people in that local area.
Where no such opportunities exist, other investment options should be considered, but we cannot allow a situation where, for example, an LGPS fund raised in the midlands is continuously redirected elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately, the Bill appears to suggest that the other areas included in the consolidated LGPS schemes could benefit disproportionately. My constituents may ask me, “Why aren’t these funds being used locally by investing in local opportunities, rather than being gifted to councils in other areas of the country, assisting in the same way?” I believe the amendment will add clarity on that to the Bill, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it.
Kirsty Blackman
I was thinking about how the amendment would work in practice in my local area. I live in the Aberdeen city council area. We are landlocked. We are surrounded by the Aberdeenshire council area. If those local authorities were in separate local government pension schemes, the effect of the amendment would be that Aberdeenshire council could not class an investment in Aberdeen as a local investment despite the fact that its local authority headquarters are in Aberdeen. That is the only sensible place for them because Aberdeenshire goes all around Aberdeen, and it is the only place to which someone can reasonably get transport from all the areas in Aberdeenshire.
Although I understand what the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Mid Leicestershire are saying about the classification of local investments, I am not uncomfortable with the fact that the clause includes
“for the benefit of persons living or working in”
the area. If, for example, people in Aberdeenshire invested in a new swimming pool in Aberdeen city, I imagine that it would be used by a significant number of people in Aberdeenshire, and would absolutely be for their benefit.
We should remember that the local government pension schemes will have to prove that the thing they are investing in is for the benefit of local people living or working within the scheme area, although it may be slightly outside it. For example, if they invested in a small renewable energy project providing renewable energy to local people across a border, they would fall foul of this. It would not be classed as a local investment despite the fact that it would be very much for the benefit of people living or working within the scheme area.
The level of flexibility in the clause, and the fact that the schemes will have to justify their investments anyway, is more sensible than what the amendment suggests. I understand the drive to ensure that provision is made for local investment in local areas, but because of the nature of some of those boundaries, it makes more sense to keep the clause the way that the Government have written it.
Torsten Bell
I will give a very short speech because the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has just made every single point that I was going to make. I understand the motivation behind the amendment, but we do not support it because it would prevent investments that straddle boundaries—for example, investments in transport and infrastructure that would benefit people living in both Wales and neighbouring English counties. We have heard other examples as well. It would be wrong to limit authorities in where they could invest in this way. I ask the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to withdraw the amendment as it unnecessarily limits the remit of local investment.
Mark Garnier
I thank the Minister and wish him many happy returns. I hope that he has a happy birthday. We are satisfied with the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 31— Guidance on utilising surpluses—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the utilisation of surpluses within the Local Government Pension Scheme.
(2) Guidance must include—
(a) information about maintaining scheme members’ financial security;
(b) how the surplus can best support local fiscal needs.”.
This new clause requires Secretary of State to publish guidance on how surpluses can be deployed to balance member security with local fiscal needs.
Torsten Bell
Clause 2 sets out how assets will be managed in the LGPS under the reformed system of asset pooling. It requires that asset-pooling regulations introduced under clause 1 include requirements for all LGPS assets to be managed by pool companies. The clause would therefore introduce a statutory requirement to consolidate all LGPS assets into those pools, delivering the significant benefits that I know all hon. Members present agree on.
The clause also sets out that the regulations must require administering authorities to formulate, publish and keep under review an investment strategy for their authority’s assets. It also stipulates that regulations may set out from whom administering authorities can take advice on their investment strategy, a point raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. The Government intend to use regulations to require that the pool be the primary source of advice. That will ensure that advice is provided on a consistent basis and free from competing interests, given that pools exist solely to serve their administering authorities. That is an important wider point to remember: the administering authorities are the shareholders of pools and are working together to deliver for members; they are not competing interests.
Regulations must also require administering authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities to identify and develop appropriate investment opportunities. This requirement will soon see the LGPS involved at an earlier stage on local investment opportunities. For the purposes of this provision, for England the definition of strategic authorities matches that in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, while for Wales it includes corporate joint committees. Members may wish to note that there is a reciprocal duty on strategic authorities in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
In summary, the Government are introducing the provisions to finalise the consolidation of assets into pools, and to codify the role of the administering authorities in setting investment strategies and how that engagement with strategic authorities will happen.
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for tabling new clause 31, which would require the Government to publish guidance on how LGPS surpluses—of which there are now more, which is welcome—can be deployed to address financial needs in local authorities. I recognise that the hon. Member seeks to support local authorities in considering their financial positions against potential funding surpluses.
Decisions on employer contribution rates in the LGPS are rightly taken locally, not by central Government. Contribution rates for employers are set every three years as part of a valuation process—which hon. Members will know is approaching shortly—in which administering authorities will work with their actuaries and employers, including local authorities, to determine a contribution rate that is sustainable for employers and will allow the fund to pay out pensions in the future. As part of that process, a local authority is able to utilise a surplus in its funding position by reducing employer contribution rates. The LGPS is currently in a healthy funding position, as I said, and it is expected that some employers will follow that path. But crucially, again, that is a decision to be made locally on the basis of each employer’s needs.
The existing statutory guidance says that funds should set out in their funding strategy their approach to employer contributions, including a reduction of contributions where appropriate, and should carefully identify and manage conflicts of interest, including conflicts between the role of the particular administering authority and other local authorities that are participants.
Kirsty Blackman
This is a genuine question that I do not know the answer to. Is reducing the contribution made by employers the only way that the funds can currently utilise a surplus, or are there other methods by which they can spend it?
Torsten Bell
That is the only way that I have seen taken up by local authorities, and it is the main one that local authorities are discussing, although, as I have said, that is a decision for them. I hope that at least partially answers the hon. Lady’s question. I commend clause 2 to the Committee, and ask the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to withdraw his new clause.
Mark Garnier
On new clause 31, as we have heard, the local government pension scheme in England and Wales has reached a record surplus of some £45 billion, which is 112% of funding levels, as of June 2024, with some estimating that it will rise to more than 125% by the end of 2025. Despite that strong funding position, no measures have been introduced to make it easier to allow councils or employers to reduce contributions or take contribution holidays. The surplus could be used to create contribution holidays for local authorities, as we have heard, or potentially to reduce council tax or increase the money available for spending on local services.
The current Government focus remains on asset pooling and local investment strategies, rather than enabling the more immediate and flexible use of surplus funds. Councils can already reduce employer contributions under regulations 64 and 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. The problem is that, in practice, actuaries and administering authorities hold the cards, and the guidance has been used to shut down reviews even when funding levels are strong.
The Minister needs to consider issuing better guidance to councils to make the process more transparent, to rebalance the power between councils and funds, and to ensure that actuaries properly consider reductions when the funding position justifies it. The mechanisms that are currently in place mean that the assumptions are overly prudent, reviews come only in cycles, and councils have no leverage in disputes.
New clause 31 seeks to introduce provisions to allow employers within the local government pension scheme to take contribution holidays or reduce employer contributions when surplus funding is confirmed, with actuarial valuations, subject to maintaining the security of member benefits. It would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how surpluses could be prudently deployed to balance member security with local fiscal needs. That would enable councils to better manage budgets, support local services and stimulate local economies without compromising pension schemes.
However, the Minister seems to be working with the Opposition on trying to find ways to move all this forward, so for the sake of brevity we will seek to withdraw new clause 31.
Steve Darling
The Minister spoke of a couple of opportunities for regulation in this area, and we heard oral evidence about how an awful lot of this Bill is to be drawn out in secondary legislation. Will he give us timelines for when he plans to share the regulations, or at least begin the consultation on them, and say what he sees as the key elements of those regulations that will break cover in due course?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
For the avoidance of doubt, new clause 31 will be put to the vote much later on. At that stage, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest will be able to withdraw it if he so chooses.
Clause 3
Exemption from public procurement rules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 21—Exemption from public procurement rules.
Torsten Bell
Clause 3 concerns how procurement law relates to the LGPS. New clause 21 is intended to replace clause 3, and I will endeavour to explain why it is a technical but valuable amendment. The existing clause and the replacing new clause are identical in their purpose and desired outcome. The reason for the change is technical: rather than stating in the Bill how procurement law affects the LGPS, new clause 21 will instead move the LGPS exemption directly into schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023, thereby future-proofing it against changes to the Procurement Act itself.
The amended clause has two aims. First, to broaden the scope of cross-pool collaboration, and secondly, to put client authorities, of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, on the same footing as share- holders. That is necessary because the Procurement Act effectively caps the potential for collaboration through joint ventures between pools, as the vertical exemption in schedule 2 to that Act requires demonstration that no more than 20% of a pool’s turnover can be generated on behalf of anyone other than that pool’s shareholders. That may limit the collaboration between pools that we expect to see more of.
Legislation should not act as a barrier to collaboration. The clause addresses that by exempting LGPS pools from the 20% limit, such that the relevant procurement rules are satisfied so long as a pool is acting in the interests of any LGPS authority. Furthermore, given that LGPS authorities can choose to participate in their pool as a contracting client or as a shareholder, the clause also enables all LGPS authorities to benefit from the exemption, regardless of whether they are a client only or a shareholder. This means that LGPS pools will be able to specialise as centres of excellence for particular asset classes and for other pools to access those services, thereby reducing duplication and enabling the investments at scale that we heard so much about in the evidence session.
I ask that clause 3 does not stand part of the Bill, but commend to the Committee new clause 21, which replaces clause 3.
Kirsty Blackman
The Government have requested to withdraw clause 3 and replace it with new clause 21. I am slightly confused as to how we got to the point where the Government did not make this decision in the first place, and how the Bill we discussed on Second Reading did not include the change being made to the Procurement Act, instead of the change being made directly in the Bill. Have the Government done significant consultation over the summer, or received input from various organisations that has made it clear that the new way they are now proposing is better than the original?
I can understand that there are two different ways and that there may be a toss-up about which one is best, but why have the Government come down on the side of changing the Procurement Act rather than making the change in primary legislation in the Bill? The Minister has made a little bit of that case, but if he could expand on why the Government have chosen to change their approach, it would be incredibly helpful.
Torsten Bell
I will be very straight with the hon. Lady, in answer to her fair question. It would obviously be preferable if the clause were not changing between Second Reading and Report, so it is a completely reasonable question to ask. The straight answer is that it is both because of consultation responses, or people’s feedback, and because the legal advice is that this is a more foolproof way to make sure that the intent of the Bill on Second Reading is put into effect.
As I set out earlier, the key change is that other changes to the Procurement Act will not have unintended consequences for the LGPS in future. I hope the hon. Lady understands that that is the motivation. There is nothing else going on here. The change has happened over that period because that is when comments came in and when legal advice was received.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I put the Question that clause 3 stand part of the Bill and some people shouted aye and nobody shouted no—so that is it. I suggest that Members will have to deal with this on Report. The only way we learn how to conduct procedure in this House is through experience, and I am sure the Minister and the Government Whip will not forget this experience.
Clause 4
Scheme manager governance reviews
Amendments made: 18, in clause 4, page 4, line 35, leave out “for England and Wales”.
The amendment would secure that Clause 4 applies to scheme regulations relating to a pension scheme for local government workers for Scotland, as well as scheme regulations relating to a scheme for local government workers in England and Wales. Clause 1 does not extend to Northern Ireland (see Clause 100).
Amendment 19, in clause 4, page 4, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.
The amendment and Amendments 20, 21, 22 and 23 are consequential on Amendment 18. References in Clause 4 to the Secretary of State are changed to “the responsible authority”. That term is defined by Amendment 24 to refer either to the Secretary of State (as regards England and Wales) or to the Scottish Ministers (as regards Scotland).
Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 5, line 1, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 19.
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 5, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 19.
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 5, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 19.
Amendment 23, in clause 4, page 5, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.—(Torsten Bell.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 19.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 22—Additional powers for certain scheme managers.
Torsten Bell
Thank you for the learning, Sir Christopher.
Clause 4 enables the Government to make regulations that require LGPS administering authorities to undertake and publish an independent review of their governance arrangements at least once every three years. I am sure that Committee members will agree that good governance is critical to the healthy functioning of a pensions scheme. The clause will ensure that authorities face external scrutiny of their governance processes. Many authorities already carry out governance reviews of this form and this measure will merely ensure consistent high standards.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to direct an authority to undertake an ad hoc governance review if they are concerned by significant weaknesses in an authority’s governance or suspect that an authority is not complying with regulations. As a result of the amendments we have already discussed, the power can also be exercised by Scottish Ministers in relation to the LGPS in Scotland.
New clause 22 enables the Secretary of State to give specified LGPS administering authorities certain additional powers, which most administering authorities will already have by virtue of being local authorities. The new clause allows the powers to be extended to administering authorities that are not local authorities, such as the Environment Agency. The new clause will simply create a level playing field for all administering authorities in England and Wales.
Kirsty Blackman
What is the Government’s rationale for not including Scotland in new clause 22? Is it because the Scottish Government looked at the original Bill and had not seen the amendments? Or is it because the differential structures between Scotland and the rest of the UK mean that it would not help in the Scottish situation? If the Minister is not clear on the answer, will he please commit to ask the Scottish Government whether they want to be included in the new clause and the relevant changes to be made so that it applies in Scotland? If the regulatory systems are the same, it seems sensible that a level playing field apply. It would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could make the commitment to check whether the Scottish Government want to be included.
Torsten Bell
I am happy to give that commitment. I am not aware of any administering authorities in Scotland that would be affected, but I am happy to take that point away.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Mergers of funds
Mark Garnier
I beg to move amendment 244, in clause 5, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(2) In the case of merger of schemes for local government workers, the Secretary of State must consider the geography of scheme areas and ensure these areas align with strategic authority boundaries before implementing the merger.”
This amendment requires the Government to explicitly consider the geography of new LGPS areas in any reorganisation.
The amendment would amend the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to explicitly empower the Secretary of State to make regulations if there was a merger, including a compulsory merger, of two or more LGPS-funded schemes. The change in clause 5 would support flexibility for structural consolidation to enhance fund management and efficiencies; however, there is uncertainty about how the Government will confirm geographical boundaries for the local government pension scheme asset pools amid local government reorganisation.
Currently, LGPS reform aims to consolidate assets and strengthen local investment, but concerns remain about the implementation timescales and risks of disruption. Stakeholders highlight the need for clarity on new geographical boundary definitions and on alignment with new or existing local authority boundaries. Potential challenges exist in meeting asset-pooling and Government deadlines if changes coincide with wider local government changes.
Amendment 244 would require the Secretary of State to explicitly consider, for any LGPS scheme merger, the geography of scheme areas, and ensure alignment with strategic authority boundaries. This would help to provide clarity, promote smoother transitions and reduce disruption from concurrent local government reorganisations. The amendment emphasises the importance of integrating pension scheme boundaries with local government structures to support effective government and investment strategies. We hope the Government will reflect on this issue as the Bill progresses through the House.
Steve Darling
As the Lib Dem spokesman for this part of the Bill, I welcome the direction of travel.
Kirsty Blackman
If the hon. Member for Wyre Forest can confirm that he does not intend the change to apply in Scotland, because we do not have strategic authorities, I am quite happy not to vote for or against it and to leave it to those who do have strategic authorities.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for the amendment and for the points he raised. Amendment 244 would amend clause 5 to allow fund mergers only if the two funds are in the same strategic authority, so it would be a highly constraining power. I recognise the logic, but our view is that it is far too constraining.
I emphasise to Members that the Government do not have any plans to require the mergers of LGPS funds, and that our strong preference is that when mergers take place, that happens by agreement between the administering authorities. The Government would use the power to require a merger of pension funds only as a last resort, if local decision making failed to deliver satisfactory arrangements.
I reassure Members that during the reform process Ministers and officials have looked carefully at how local government reorganisation, which is ongoing and very important, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest rightly pointed out, maps on to the existing LGPS geography, and we will continue to do so. There should not be any friction between the emerging unitary structures and the LGPS. I reassure the Opposition that the administering authorities that were in the Brunel and Access pools are already carefully considering their choice of a new pool in the light of local government reorganisation.
In summary, it is important that local government pension funds and Ministers retain flexibility in their decision making so that decisions can be taken in the best interests of the relevant scheme. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 244.
Mark Garnier
I am reassured by the Minister’s comments and appreciate that he wishes to make the measure work in the interests, geographically, of local government or local authorities as they undergo a transition through the reorganisation of local authorities. Obviously, this provision needs to work concurrently with that process, but I appreciate that it is up to the authorities in the first instance. We wanted to be reassured, and the Minister has made the point that there will be no or little Government interference unless they really do disagree with themselves. I am reassured.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
Schedule 3 to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 has already conferred powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the administration, management and winding up of any pension funds. Clause 5 amends the 2013 Act to clarify and provide certainty that, in the case of the LGPS, the Secretary of State already has existing powers to make regulations about the merger of two or more LGPS pension funds. That includes compulsory merger. The purpose of the clause is simply to ensure that it is put beyond doubt that sufficient powers are in place to facilitate the merger of pension funds if needed—for example, as a consequence of local government reorganisation.
The power could also be used in the unlikely event that an independent governance review finds particularly grave issues with an administering authority’s governance of its pension fund. Members will note that, as I have just pointed out, the Government do not have any plans to require the merger of funds at present, and our strong preference is that when mergers happen, that is done on the basis of agreement between the administering authorities. These powers can also be exercised by Scottish Ministers in relation to the LGPS in Scotland. I urge that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Amendments of 2013 Act relating to scheme regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
The powers and duties to make local government pension scheme regulations under this chapter of the Bill are exercisable under the 2013 Act. Clause 6 sets out the amendments required to that Act to ensure that these powers operate effectively. Subsection (2) clarifies that the power to make scheme regulations under the Act is subject to the Bill’s provisions, and it ensures that scheme regulations can include any consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision that is necessary as a result of the Bill. Subsection (3) further clarifies that the requirement to consult on scheme regulations made under provisions in the Bill, which must be satisfied before the regulations can be made under section 21 of the 2013 Act, can be satisfied by consultation carried out before or after the Bill comes into force. Just to spell this out, that is to say that consultation taking place before Royal Assent could contribute to the consultation required.
I hope that clause 7 provides a useful interpretation of the terms and definitions in chapter 1 as they relate to local government pension schemes. I urge that clauses 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Interpretation of Chapter 1
Amendment made: 24, in clause 7, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
“‘the responsible authority’ means (in relation to a scheme for local government workers in England and Wales or Scotland)—
(a) the Secretary of State, in or as regards England and Wales, or
(b) the Scottish Ministers, in or as regards Scotland.”—(Torsten Bell.)
The amendment defines the term “responsible authority” for the purposes of clauses in Chapter 1 of Part 1.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Power to modify scheme to allow for payment of surplus to employer
Torsten Bell
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 8, page 8, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 27. It removes the power to disapply the section in prescribed cases, as this is now contained in new subsection (5A).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 26 and 27.
Clause stand part.
Torsten Bell
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for the progress through the local government pension schemes part of the Bill. We now move on to the defined-benefit clauses. Clause 8, which amends the Pensions Act 1995, enables trustees of private sector defined-benefit schemes to modify their schemes to safely share surplus funds with the sponsoring employer. Through that change, trustees will also be better placed to negotiate with sponsoring employers to get additional benefits from surplus for scheme members.
I know that Members here—that is, hon. Members rather than scheme members—are keen to ensure that the security of pensions is not impacted by these changes. We have consulted on this point and several restrictions are in place that are outlined in clause 9. I will outline the core protections.
First, trustees will remain in the driver’s seat, deciding whether to modify scheme rules to allow surplus release from their individual schemes in line with their duty to the interests of the beneficiaries. Secondly, a prudent funding threshold for surplus release will be set out in regulations, on which we will consult. Surplus will be released only where a scheme is fully funded at a low dependency, which means that the scheme funding is sufficiently high to allow trustees to meet future liabilities with a very low risk of future employer contributions. Thirdly, trustees must obtain actuarial certification to demonstrate that the scheme meets these funding requirements and members must be notified before surplus funds are released.
The amendments clarify two points. First, the treatment of particular cases, such as sectionalised schemes—schemes that have multiple parts to them—is usually set out in regulations. Amendment 27 enables regulations to specify how the new powers to modify by resolution will apply in such cases—for example, to ensure that each section in a sectionalised scheme is treated as a scheme in its own right for the purposes of this power specifically.
Secondly, the power in the clause is not intended to affect schemes in wind up where the majority of schemes will have existing rules about how surplus should be distributed at the point of wind up. The amendment clarifies that when trustees consider the exercise of the power to modify, any separate power to repay surplus on winding up is disregarded. Equally, the new power in clause 8 cannot be used to introduce a power or to modify an existing power to release surplus on winding up.
Mark Garnier
I thank the Minister for his comments. We agree that the law needs to be updated to reflect current circumstances, and it makes sense to ensure that companies that have not made pre-2016 resolutions are not unfairly penalised. We broadly support the update to the law because it corrects an important imbalance. However, it is crucial, as we move forward, that we maintain the necessary guardrails and uphold the independence of trustees to protect scheme members’ interests. These important aspects will be further discussed in relation to clause 9.
I will raise a couple of points made by people we have been engaging with while looking at the Bill. First, the Pensions Management Institute highlighted its disappointment that the Government did not take the opportunity of this legislation, which broadly talks about defined-benefit funds, to make it easier and more tax efficient for employers and schemes to use scheme surpluses to fund contributions under defined-contribution arrangements, including those not held in the same trust. That would have opened up possibilities for many entities that have long since moved their ongoing DC provisions to a master trust or contract-based arrangement.
The Phoenix Group also highlighted an issue. To protect funding levels after surplus release, schemes may adopt more cautious investment strategies, reducing allocations to private and productive assets. That could undermine the Government’s growth objectives. Aside from those points, we are happy with the clause.
Steve Darling
I very much echo what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said. Clearly, surpluses have built up over a number of years since the last crash. There has been a level of overcaution. It is important for our economy that those surpluses are appropriately released, which could drive economic growth. I am sure that all of us in the room want to see that.
Kirsty Blackman
Perhaps it reflects my ideological position that I am much more comfortable seeing this happen with local authorities than I am here, and I am looking for more guardrails. In fact, there are more guardrails around how local government pension schemes do this. It can be done pretty much only if it is to reduce employer contributions, which increases the amount of money that local authorities have for either reducing council tax, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said, or for spending on whatever it is that they want to spend money on a day-to-day basis.
I would like to see more power go to trustees. I am concerned—this was raised previously—about the level of employer pressure that could come to bear on trustees about releasing surplus, when it may not be in the best interests of all the scheme members but the employer might be really keen to use the money. I am also concerned that we have had quite a lot of different ideas about what the surpluses could be used for. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, made the same point as the Government about ensuring that employers could invest more to grow the economy, whether that is in bits of tech that make the company more productive or workplace benefits for those who are scheme members.
Why did the Government decide not to strengthen the powers of trustees in relation to the surplus release? Could the Government look in future at tightening what surplus release could be used for? Trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure that members’ pensions grow as promised, and that they get the benefits that they were promised or that their defined-contribution scheme in other circumstances grows at the right level. However, if the fiduciary duty applies, why is there not a similar application in terms of surplus release? Why is there not a similar requirement on trustees to ensure that that surplus release goes the way that we think it should go?
On Second Reading, I said that there had not been enough clarity from the Government about how they want that surplus to be released. Are they encouraging or instructing trustees to release surplus to employers if it will be invested in the business, or if it is being done to invest in workplace training schemes? I am not convinced that there is enough clarity on this issue.
Given the Government’s drive to ensure that more people are working and that there is a reduction in the amount of economic inactivity, they could say, “Actually, if you are going to use this to improve access to work, to ensure that you can employ more disabled people, we will absolutely sign off a surplus release, provided that you have met all the other criteria.” The Government could encourage trustees to do that. I feel as though there are more levers that the Government could use and that they are not taking this opportunity.
I have not tabled any amendments on this issue, but I raised it on Second Reading. It would be great if the Government gave me some comfort that they are considering whether—in the future with the Bill or, down the line, in the guidance that is given to trustees—to strengthen the hand of trustees, so that they can direct employers better and so they do not come under pressure from employers; or whether the Government will take policy decisions or directions, and point them out to trustees so that they are encouraged to go in a certain direction to ensure that there is growth in the economy, which is apparently the Government’s first mission.
Torsten Bell
I welcome the broad consensus about the direction of travel from everyone who has spoken. I will come first to the remarks from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who made some key points. She understandably makes the direct comparison with the LGPS. To a large respect, that reflects the fact that the LGPS is an open scheme where the ongoing contributions are much more of a live question, but I take her point.
I will make a few remarks on her more controversial points about the role of trustees and what funds are used for. The powers of trustees are very strong. Trustees have an absolute veto on any surplus release under the clause, as they do currently, and they have fiduciary duties about how they should use their powers. That is stronger than was implied in some of the remarks that we have heard.
As for the wider point about pressure on trustees from employers, that can affect lots of issues and is not specific to the one we are discussing today. That is what the fiduciary duties of the trust system exist to protect against and what the regulatory work of the Pensions Regulator ensures does not happen. If there was inappropriate pressure on trustees, it would be a very serious issue. That is not specific to the surplus question—that applies to trustees just doing their job. My strong impression with every trustee I talk to is that they take that duty very seriously indeed. I agree that we should always keep that under review.
Kirsty Blackman
There is an absolute veto power—a yes or no—but it is also about the power for trustees to be able to say to employers, “This is how we would like you to use the money.” There is less flexibility for trustees there. Once the money is handed over to the employers, there is no comeback for trustees if employers do not use it as suggested.
Torsten Bell
That is a factually accurate description of the situation. The hon. Lady is not the first person to have raised that point with me, and I understand the wish for greater certainty about how funds will be used. My view is that looking for that certainty through legislation is wishful thinking. Funding sitting within companies is fungible. The monitoring and enforcement of those things would not be practical in any sense. I am sure that part of the discussion between trustees and firms will be about exactly the kind of points that the hon. Lady is raising, particularly for open schemes, where there is a large overlap between employees and scheme. Members will be part of the discussion, but I do not think that that is practical for legislation. I am liberal enough, although I am certainly not a Liberal Democrat, to think that that is quite hard for legislation to manage, and that it is the role of trustees and employers to work through that.
On the hon. Lady’s wider point, I offer her some reassurance that the Pensions Regulator is taking very seriously its job of providing guidance for trustees about how they think about the questions of surpluses. I think that will offer her quite a lot of reassurance, particularly about how members benefit—she has focused on how employers benefit—from release.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendments made: 26, in clause 8, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Any power to distribute assets to the employer on a winding up is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3); and a resolution under subsection (2) may not confer such a power.”.
This amendment ensures that the scope of section 36B is confined to powers to pay surplus otherwise than on the winding up of the scheme.
Amendment 27, in clause 8, page 8, line 6, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations may provide that this section does not apply, or applies with prescribed modifications, in prescribed circumstances or to schemes of a prescribed description.”—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment, which inserts provision corresponding to section 37(8), allows for the application of section 36B to be modified in particular cases (for example, in the case of sectionalised schemes).
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Restrictions on exercise of power to pay surplus
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 9, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(2AA) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2A), regulations made under that subsection must include provision that takes into account the particular circumstances of occupational pension schemes established before the coming into force of the Pensions Act 1995 which, prior to that Act, possessed or were understood to possess a power to pay surplus to an employer.”.
This amendment would allow schemes where people are affected by pre-97 to offer discretionary indexation where funding allows, with appropriate regulatory oversight.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 9, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(aa) prohibiting the making of a payment until annual increases to payments in line with Consumer Prices Index inflation have been awarded to members,”.
This amendment requires that payments in line with CPI inflation are awarded to members before all other considerations.
John Milne
The purpose of amendment 5 is to ensure that regulations take account of the particular circumstances of occupational pension schemes that were established before the Pensions Act 1995. There is effective discrimination against certain pre-1997 pension holders. That is a long-standing grievance and has remained unresolved for far too long. This has been reflected considerably in my postbag, as I am sure it has been for pretty much every MP.
In the evidence session on Tuesday, we heard moving testimony from Roger Sainsbury of the Deprived Pensioners Association and Terry Monk of the Pensions Action Group. As they told us, many of those affected are, literally, dying without ever seeing satisfaction. Many of these pensioners are receiving a fraction of what they are entitled to and what somebody who paid the exact same sums is currently receiving. It is causing genuine hardship.
Members of the pre-’97 schemes are often in a different position to those in later schemes. These schemes were designed under a different legal and regulatory framework. Current legislation does not always reflect those historical realities, which creates unintended inequities.
The amendment would require regulations under clause 9 to explicitly consider these older schemes. It would allow such schemes, with appropriate regulatory oversight, to offer discretionary indexation where funding allows. The key impacts would be to provide flexibility while ensuring safeguards are in place, give trustees the ability to improve outcomes for members in a fair and responsible way, and help to address the long-standing issue of members who miss out on indexation simply because of the scheme’s pre-’97 status. It also ensures that members can share in scheme strength where resources permit.
Clearly, safeguards are needed, and the amendment makes it clear that discretionary increases would be possible only where schemes are well funded. Oversight by regulators ensures that employer interests and member protections remain balanced. The intention behind the amendment is to bring fairness and flexibility into the treatment of pre-’97 scheme members and to modernise the system so that it works for today’s savers without undermining scheme stability.
Mark Garnier
I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but suffice it to say that we all heard the evidence that was presented on Tuesday, and we in the Conservative party agree with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment. We will support it.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not say much just now. I would like to hear what the Minister says, and I might bob again after that, Sir Christopher.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Members for Torbay and for Horsham for their amendments and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the matter of defined-benefit members and pre-1997 accruals. I should be clear that clause 9 and the related amendments refer to defined-benefit schemes, not to the questions of the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme compensation, which were discussed at such length—and, as several hon. Members have said, powerfully—at the evidence session on Tuesday.
The Government understand the intent behind the amendments. It is crucial that the new surplus flexibilities work for both sponsoring employers and members, for example through discretionary benefit increases where appropriate. That point was raised several times on Second Reading before the summer recess.
On pre-1997 indexation, it is important to be clear that most schemes—as I said, these schemes are not in the PPF or receiving FAS compensation—pay some pre-1997 indexation. Analysis published last year by the Pensions Regulator shows that only 17% of members of private sector defined-benefit pension schemes do not receive any pre-1997 indexation on their benefits, because different scheme rules specify whether someone receives that indexation.
Under the Bill, decisions to enable the scheme to release a surplus will always rest with trustees, who have a duty to act in the interests of scheme beneficiaries. Trustees, working with the sponsoring employer, will be responsible for determining how members should benefit from any surplus release, which may include discretionary indexation. My personal view is that, in lots of cases, it should, but that is where the discussion takes place. The Government are clear that trustees’ discretion is key to this policy. Trustees are best placed to determine the correct use of the surplus for their members, not least because that will involve making some trade-offs between different groups, particularly of members, and it is trustees who are in the position to do so.
It would not be appropriate for the Government to mandate that schemes provide uncapped indexation, in line with the consumer prices index, to all members prior to the making of a surplus payment. Where trustees plan to award discretionary increases, they are best placed to identify what increase is affordable and proportionate for the scheme and its members.
Although scheme rules may require an employer to agree to a discretionary increase—this point was made by several Members who were anxious about it on Second Reading—the trustees will have the final say when deciding to release surplus, and they are perfectly within their rights to request such an increase as part of any agreement that leads to a surplus release. That is a powerful power for trustees to hold on to.
The Pensions Regulator will publish guidance for trustees, as I previously mentioned, and for their advisers, noting factors to consider when releasing surplus and ways in which trustees can ensure that members and employees can benefit. That will happen following the passage of the Bill. These measures already give trustees the opportunity to secure the best outcomes for their members, which could include discretionary increases. I am grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Horsham, but on those grounds, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
As I said, I wanted to hear from the Minister. I agree that trustees should be the ones making the decision on how to spend any surplus and whether to make an uprating. However, as some schemes are barred by their scheme rules from making such an uprating, my concern is about allowing them the flexibility to make it in any circumstances if they decide that that is the best thing to do. It is not about tying their hands and saying that they have to make an uprating; it is about allowing every single scheme the flexibility to make it if they decide that that is the best thing to do.
Where there are employer blockers or other issues in the scheme rules, can anything be done, in the Bill or anywhere else, to remove those blockers so that we can ensure that trustees have an element of choice and remove some of the unfairness that we heard about on Tuesday?
Torsten Bell
I think I can offer the hon. Lady some reassurance. It is true that within some scheme rules it will be clear that discretionary increases of the kind that we are debating would require employer agreement. I know that that has worried some hon. Members who think that that could be a veto against such releases in a surplus release situation.
My view—and the guidance to be released by the TPR will make this very clear—is as follows. It may formally be for the employer to agree to those discretionary increases. The scheme rules may apply to that, although in some schemes the trustees may be able to make that decision on their own—that will be a distinction that will depend on the scheme rules. However, even when the scheme rules say that the employers must agree, they will have a strong incentive to agree with the trustees if they are asking the trustees to release. That is why I say that the process of surplus release will change the dynamic of those discussions, which I recognise are currently not proceeding in some cases because employers are saying a blanket no to discretionary increases. We do not need legislative change to make that happen.
Kirsty Blackman
Would the Minister encourage those schemes that find that they want to release the surplus in relation to the uplift, but are struggling to get that process across the line, to go to the TPR, look at the guidance that is coming out and ask for assistance with making those discretionary uplifts?
Torsten Bell
I absolutely would. I have been making exactly those points to anyone who will listen.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his comments. Over the coming weeks, as he will be aware, we will be discussing several amendments that relate to the same issue. It will be interesting to see whether we can reach a satisfactory solution. In the meantime, we will press our amendment to a vote, because we feel that the issue has remained unresolved for such a long time that it needs everything we can give it to get it across the line, but we hope that in the next couple of weeks of debate we can find the best possible solution.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mark Garnier
I beg to move amendment 247, in clause 9, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(aa) prohibiting the making of a payment unless the scheme’s assets have exceeded a buyout valuation,”.
This amendment requires that surplus extraction is only permitted once buyout funding levels are achieved.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 260, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert—
“(e) requiring the trustees to provide a prescribed notification, as set out in (f) below, with the members of the scheme (or their representatives) not less than 60 days before making any payment under this section;
(f) the prescribed notification should include—
(i) the proposed amount of surplus to be paid to the employer,
(ii) the reasons for the proposed payment,
(iii) the impact on member benefits,
(iv) the scheme's funding position after the proposed payment, and
(v) how members may make representations regarding the proposal;
(g) requiring the trustees to have regard to any representations made by members or their representatives having received the prescribed notification.”
This amendment would require trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers. It ensures members receive full information about proposed surplus payments, enabling informed participation.
Amendment 265, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert——
“(e) requiring the trustees to provide a prescribed notification to members of the scheme, or members’ representatives, not less than 60 days before making any payment under this section,
(f) requiring the prescribed notification under subsection (e) include—
(i) the proposed amount of surplus to be paid to the employer,
(ii) the reasons for the proposed payment,
(iii) the impact on member benefits,
(iv) the scheme's funding position after the proposed payment,
(v) how members may make representations regarding the proposal, and
(g) requiring the trustees to have regard to any representations made by members or their representatives having received the prescribed notification under subsection (e).”
This amendment would require trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers.
Amendment 267, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert—
“(e) requiring that, where the scheme actuary certifies under subsection (a) that the scheme’s assets exceed the cost of securing each member’s accrued rights with an authorised insurer for a continuous period of at least six months, the trustees must first secure a full buy-out of those rights before any payment of surplus may be made to the employer or any other person, and
(f) requiring that subsection (e) does not apply if the scheme actuary certifies that any surplus extraction would, after the extraction, still leave the scheme’s assets exceeding the cost of securing each member’s accrued rights with an authorised insurer.”
This amendment inserts a requirement to ensure that surplus extraction prior to a buyout does not adversely impact the scheme’s ability to reach buyout.
Amendment 261, in clause 9, page 8, line 36, at end insert
“and including confirmation that the proposed payment (surplus access) will not adversely impact members' benefits and that the prescribed notification has been completed in accordance with regulations made under subsection (2A).”
This amendment would aim to strengthen an actuary's role and oversight of schemes accessing surplus, by requiring confirmation that member notification has occurred before certifying surplus payments.
Mark Garnier
Any decision to release surplus funds from defined-benefit pension schemes should rest firmly, as we have discussed, with the trustees. It is important to emphasise that trustees bear the ultimate responsibility for such decisions. We believe that surplus repayments to employers should be permitted only when members’ benefits are fully protected and robust safeguards are in place to maintain the security and sustainability of the scheme.
The Bill notes that the detailed criteria for surplus payments will be set out in forthcoming regulations, and those regulations must be subject to close scrutiny with a primary focus on safeguarding members’ benefits before any funds can be released. There remain important unanswered questions regarding what appropriate guardrails for surplus release should look like. One firm belief is that defined-benefit pension funds should be funded to buy-out levels, to the extent that they are capable of securing members’ benefits with an insurer. Additionally, any surplus extraction should demonstrably provide clear benefits to scheme members, rather than simply serving the employer’s interest—although we heard evidence on Tuesday that did not necessarily agree with that.
We acknowledge that there are broader issues facing defined-benefit pension schemes that we intend to explore further when the Committee considers the new clauses. In particular, the post-Maxwell accounting framework is a significant constraint on defined-benefit pension funds. The requirement to show deficits on company balance sheets suppresses growth potential. The Bill should not miss an opportunity to address those structural hurdles.
One of the behavioural outcomes we have seen is that defined-benefit pension funds have been investing large amounts of money into bonds, including Government bonds, and not into equities where there is the greatest growth potential in the economy. That throws up a couple of problems in this area. First, the money is not going into equities, which are much more volatile than bonds. Secondly, if we see surplus extraction from some of those funds, that money will come from the Government bond market—the gilt market—and there may be an impact on the Government’s ability to borrow funds, which is something we will hear more about on 26 November. Crucially, the Minister will now be part of that, and I suspect he will be taking into account the bond market’s ability to meet Government borrowing requirements when he gets close to that date.
Moreover, there is nothing in the current legislation to prevent surpluses from being used for purposes that do not support economic growth, such as share buybacks or dividend payments by the host employer. Neither of those outcomes necessarily aligns with the Government’s growth agenda, although it could be argued that the money is going back into the wider economy and finding its way back. None the less, we would like to see more guidance on how that money is to be spent. Simply repaying—potentially—private equity funds a large dividend will not necessarily help the greater good.
The Bill proposes new flexibilities for defined-benefit schemes in surplus. Currently, the Bill is unclear on the level at which employers can extract that surplus and there is concern that, once a scheme is fully funded on a low-dependency basis, buy-out could happen. That is a lower threshold than for a gold standard buy-out and, while it may free up capital for employers and support investment, there are concerns that the change could risk members’ security, as buy-out remains the safest way to guarantee benefits. Amendment 247 would provide strong protection against a change of environment where DB funds start to slip back into deficit positions.
Our amendments 260 and 261 are linked. Just Group plc wrote to the Committee to highlight that members of pension schemes that undertake employer surplus extractions should receive proper notification. Engagement with members should be undertaken before extraction, because ultimately any decisions on surplus extraction could be impactful on them. Setting out clearly in legislation what effective engagement would look like, including the role of the actuary in the process, would help trustees to understand their obligations and Parliament’s intent.
Amendment 260 requires trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers, and ensures that members receive full information about proposed surplus payments, enabling informed participation. Amendment 261 aims to strengthen an actuary’s role in oversight of schemes accessing surplus, by requiring confirmation that member notification has occurred before certifying surplus payments. Both amendments strengthen the guardrails around DB surplus extraction, as part of our overall strategy of putting member interest first and protecting trustees. We will be pressing these amendments.
Steve Darling
I rise to speak in respect of amendments 265 and 267, which echo the issues already covered by the shadow Minister. Allowing 60 days’ notice to scheme members is extremely important to the Liberal Democrats—and, to be fair, I am sure it is also important to the Government—and the central intention is to protect outcomes for members of schemes and ensure that there is enough flexibility. That 60 days’ notice is really important to us.
Ensuring that there is enough money in the scheme for any buy-out is the second element, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has already alluded to. We think it is very important that the finances are there and that we put scheme members at the centre of the proposals before us. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what reassurance he is able to give us on those points.
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak specifically to amendments 260 and 265. Any communication with scheme members is a good thing, particularly if there are to be changes such as those we have been discussing. Sometimes, surplus extraction may not be for the benefit of scheme members; sometimes it may be for other reasons, and trustees have a duty to make clear what they think it is for and to release a surplus only if they think it is a reasonable thing to do. However, they may not have a full understanding of how members feel about what the surplus could be used for. For example, scheme members who are active members might feel that they would love their company to invest in something to make their lives and their jobs easier, and might be keener on that extraction than the trustees might think, so it would be great to have that input.
Amendments 260 and 265 are incredibly similar—surprisingly similar, in fact—and I am happy to support both, were they put to a vote. Amendment 261 is consequential; on amendments 247 and 267, I do not feel I have enough information on what trustees think to make a reasonable judgment on whether either amendment would be a sensible way forward for trustees to meet their fiduciary duty, which is to provide the best guaranteed return for scheme members. I will step out of votes on amendments 247 or 267, but I will support the amendment that requires members to be consulted in advance.
Mr Bedford
I rise to speak to amendment 260. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for outlining our rationale for the amendments. My comments regard informing members. I support the right to pay surplus to employers—I think that is the right thing to do, so long as the correct safeguards are in place—but it is right to inform members of that decision. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will improve member engagement in the whole pensions process. I made a point in Tuesday’s evidence session on the importance of financial education, and a number of witnesses supported that position. By more actively engaging with members, we will ensure that they take part in their own pension provision and ensure that the right decisions are made in their own interests.
Torsten Bell
My overall reflection on the amendments is that in most cases what is being requested is already happening, or risks reducing flexibility for trustees. I will set that out in a bit more detail, but I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions and for the amendments targeting important areas of concern.
Amendments 247 and 261 aim to maintain the buy-out funding threshold for surplus release from DB schemes. Member security is at the heart of our changes, as I have already set out. We are clear that the new surplus flexibilities must both work for employers and maintain a very high level of security for members, as we all agree. Under these proposals, surplus sharing will remain subject to strict safeguards, including the actuarial certification and the prudent funding threshold, which is the same threshold that the TPR under the previous Government had put in place for defined-benefit schemes to aim for more generally. The defined-benefit funding code and underpinning legislation require that trustees aim to maintain a strong funding position more generally, leaving aside the question of surplus release. They do that so that we have very high confidence that members’ future pensions will be paid.
However, the Government are minded to amend the funding threshold at which surplus can be released from the current buy-out threshold to the full funding on a low dependency basis, as I mentioned earlier. That is still a robust and prudent threshold that aligns with the existing rules, as I have just said. The goal here is to give more options to DB scheme trustees. Again, that is true across the Bill: we are aiming to provide trustees with more options about how they proceed.
Many schemes are planning to buy out members’ benefits with an insurer. In many cases that is the right thing for them to do, but other schemes might want to continue to run on their scheme for some time without expecting future contributions to be required from an employer. The low-dependency threshold will give flexibility to trustees to do so. It is right that they have a variety of options to choose from when selecting the endgame for their scheme.
The Government will set out the details of the revised funding threshold in draft regulations, on which we will consult. More broadly, we think it right that that is done via secondary legislation, not primary legislation.
Steve Darling
Can the Minister give us some timescales? I asked previously about timescales, regulations and secondary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that.
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member rightly returns to an important question. As I set out at the evidence session on Tuesday, our pension policy road map, published at the same time as the Bill, details exactly when we are planning to bring forward regulations. My understanding is that these particular regulations should be consulted on in the spring of next year—if that is not right, I will make sure we come back to him with further details. As I say, the road map provides the details of that timeline. It is a very important question for people to be clear on. In that consultation, I am sure the evidence we have heard will be taken into account.
Amendments 260 and 265 correctly aim to ensure that members are well informed and represented when it comes to their pension schemes and retirement. The new paragraphs would be inserted into clause 9 of the Bill, which amends section 37 of the Pensions Act 1995. Section 37 already provides that regulations must require members to be notified in relation to a surplus payment before it is made.
This is therefore not about the flexibility of trustees; it is redundant, given the requirements already in the Bill. It is similar to the existing requirement under section 37 of the Pensions Act 1995, and we will again consult on these draft regulations following Royal Assent. Furthermore, trustees already have a clear duty to act in all matters in the best interests of the beneficiaries of their scheme, and they are best placed to decide, in consultation with the sponsoring employer, what actions are best for members—I will not keep repeating that point as we go through the rest of this Bill.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for proposing amendment 261, with its requirement for actuarial confirmation that proposed payments from a DB surplus to employers will not adversely affect members’ benefits, and that members have been notified ahead of that release. Those are valuable objectives, but they are already achieved by the robust safeguards in place, including trustee discretion, the prudent funding threshold —on which we will consult—and the actuarial certification that a scheme is well funded.
In addition, the defined-benefit funding code and the underpinning legislation already require trustees to aim to maintain a strong funding position, and that is actively overseen by the Pensions Regulator. I believe the safeguards we have put in place put members at the heart of the policy, which is a point of cross-party agreement, and will allow trustees to continue to be the people who strike the correct balance between the benefits for employers and members. I hope this offers some reassurance to the Committee that, for the reasons I have outlined, these amendments are unnecessary; I urge hon. Members not to press them.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has said that trustees are required to act in the interests of and to the benefit of scheme members. However, they are required to act so that members will get the benefits that they are promised under the pension. They are not required to act to the benefit of scheme members. As I said earlier, there is a distinct possibility—particularly with surplus, which is not going into the pension scheme and which can only be paid if those benefits are already guaranteed—that the surplus is only a surplus in the case where members are definitely going to get those benefits anyway.
It is the case that trustees might not know what is to the benefit of members. Requiring them, or asking them, to consult members on what they would like, or to provide members with information about how money is going to be spent, could get better results for those members. It is not going to change the amount of pension they will get, which is the trustees’ requirement; however, it may change their lives in a more positive way. Whether or not they are people currently paying into the scheme and actively employed, there are ways that the surplus could be spent that would benefit or disbenefit their lives.
In making that case, I think there should be a consultation with members. The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire made the point very well that we should encourage people to take more interest in and have more input into their pensions, so that they have a better idea of what is going on, of the possibility of surpluses and of how they are spent. I would appreciate it if the Minister, when he is considering the regulations and the changes being made, could think about how best to consult scheme members. Given that trustees have a duty to act not in the best interests of members, but in the best interests of members’ pensions, I would love to see, around the surplus, arrangements that benefit scheme members—whether they are currently paying, future or deferred members, or those already getting their pensions—rather than solely the employer and the employer’s intentions.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Gerald Jones.)
Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 260, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert—
“(e) requiring the trustees to provide a prescribed notification, as set out in (f) below, with the members of the scheme (or their representatives) not less than 60 days before making any payment under this section;
(f) the prescribed notification should include—
(i) the proposed amount of surplus to be paid to the employer,
(ii) the reasons for the proposed payment,
(iii) the impact on member benefits,
(iv) the scheme’s funding position after the proposed payment, and
(v) how members may make representations regarding the proposal;
(g) requiring the trustees to have regard to any representations made by members or their representatives having received the prescribed notification.”
This amendment would require trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers. It ensures members receive full information about proposed surplus payments, enabling informed participation.
Amendment 265, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert——
“(e) requiring the trustees to provide a prescribed notification to members of the scheme, or members’ representatives, not less than 60 days before making any payment under this section,
(f) requiring the prescribed notification under subsection (e) include—
(i) the proposed amount of surplus to be paid to the employer,
(ii) the reasons for the proposed payment,
(iii) the impact on member benefits,
(iv) the scheme's funding position after the proposed payment,
(v) how members may make representations regarding the proposal, and
(g) requiring the trustees to have regard to any representations made by members or their representatives having received the prescribed notification under subsection (e).”
This amendment would require trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers.
Amendment 267, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert—
“(e) requiring that, where the scheme actuary certifies under subsection (a) that the scheme’s assets exceed the cost of securing each member’s accrued rights with an authorised insurer for a continuous period of at least six months, the trustees must first secure a full buy-out of those rights before any payment of surplus may be made to the employer or any other person, and
(f) requiring that subsection (e) does not apply if the scheme actuary certifies that any surplus extraction would, after the extraction, still leave the scheme’s assets exceeding the cost of securing each member’s accrued rights with an authorised insurer.”
This amendment inserts a requirement to ensure that surplus extraction prior to a buyout does not adversely impact the scheme’s ability to reach buy-out.
Amendment 261, in clause 9, page 8, line 36, at end insert
“and including confirmation that the proposed payment (surplus access) will not adversely impact members’ benefits and that the prescribed notification has been completed in accordance with regulations made under subsection (2A).”
This amendment would aim to strengthen an actuary's role and oversight of schemes accessing surplus, by requiring confirmation that member notification has occurred before certifying surplus payments.
Does Mr Darling wish to respond further in this debate?
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Sir Christopher, I am happy to proceed in order to get things moving.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 9, page 9, line 4, at end insert—
“(e) about the proportion of any surplus that may be allocated, or the manner in which it may be determined, for the purpose of contributing to the provision of free, impartial pension advice and guidance services for scheme members.”
This amendment enables a proportion of surplus funds to be used to fund free pension advice.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow a proportion of pension scheme surplus funds to be allocated to funding free, impartial pension advice and guidance services for members. In my former life in advertising, it was sometimes my job to help people to understand their pension options so that they could make the right choices, and I can tell the Committee it was not an easy task. Pensions are complicated, and far too many people have no idea at all what is in store for them, and therefore do not take advice. We argue that rectifying this gap is the key task that at the moment is underserved by the Bill. There are proposals such as the pensions dashboard that certainly help, but they are by no means sufficient. More action needs to be taken, and that is the essence of the amendment.
Without proper advice, members risk making poor financial decisions, such as taking all their lump sum and getting taxed unnecessarily, which could severely damage their long-term security. Free, impartial advice is essential to level the playing field between those who are more informed and perhaps have higher incomes, and those who are not. The details of our revised proposals are laid out in new clause 1, which, slightly inconveniently, will be discussed later in the proceedings; this amendment is about the funding for that measure. We propose two stages of advice: at age 40, which is a critical moment for all midlife planning and pension consolidation, and again within six years of expected retirement, when the emphasis shifts more to decisions about drawdown, annuities and retirement income options.
The first question that is always asked when any extension to a Government service is proposed is, “How will we pay for it?”. This measure is a highly relevant, targeted solution to that question, made possible by accessing surplus funds. We have general agreement, I think, that surpluses in pension schemes should not be allowed to sit idle or be seen simply as windfall funds, but we have less clarity and agreement on what exactly is the best use for them. I would argue that the measure we propose, employing a small proportion of the surplus to fund member advice, is at once a highly relevant targeted use for the funds, and something that will have a disproportionately large impact on pension adequacy, which is of course a matter of great concern to the Minister outside this Bill.
The amendment does not mandate a fixed proportion; it simply gives the Secretary of State powers to determine what proportion he or she thinks should be used. It creates flexibility and safeguards, so that the balance between scheme health and member benefit can be properly managed. Importantly, funding advice from surpluses would reduce the need for members to pay out of their own pockets; for many, the cost is prohibitive, so it simply does not happen. A further benefit is that it would build trust among the public that schemes are actively supporting member outcomes beyond just the pension pot itself.
To summarise, the amendment is designed to ensure that pension surpluses, when they arise, are used to strengthen member outcomes. Advice and guidance are just as important as the pension itself in ensuring good retirement outcomes. The amendment is a practical, fair and member-focused way of improving the system.
Mark Garnier
As we have heard, the amendment authorises the use of surplus pension funds to contribute to the provision of free, impartial pension advice and guidance services to scheme members. The age of 40 is very important, and I hope that the Minister, on his 42nd birthday—
Mark Garnier
Forty-third! He looks 28. None the less, I hope he is getting plenty of pension advice; who knows when he may need it?
This is a very good provision. The more informed people are about their retirement opportunities, the better. I suppose I have to declare a bit of an interest, inasmuch as I will retire in five years’ time, hopefully. It is incredibly important that people are well prepared for their retirement, and the more information a member of a pension fund has, the better it is. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will support it wholeheartedly.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am in massive agreement with putting more investment into the provision of advice. On Tuesday, we heard the terrible stats that only 9% of people actually get advice on their pension from a financial adviser. Yet this amendment is the wrong vehicle to achieve that, given that it is looking purely at DB surpluses.
My understanding is that people who have DC pensions are much more likely to need advice than those who are on DB pensions, because that someone with a DC pension cannot tell how much they will get before they actually apply for the annuities when they retire. Their life circumstances may change between the age of 40 and hitting retirement. My understanding is that those on DB pensions have a pretty clear idea of what they are getting on a weekly, monthly or annual basis, in addition to a lump sum that they may be awarded as part of that DB pension scheme. Using the surplus created in DB schemes to fund advice for DC scheme participants would not be in the best interests of the scheme members.
I agree that we need more advice; I think that the proposal made in new clause 1 for earlier advice is incredibly important, because by the time someone gets to the age of 50-plus or very close to retirement, they do not have time to fix any issues. I would love to see people, when they are first auto-enrolled, getting advice on how much pension they are likely to get from whatever percentage of pay is put in, what a top-up looks like and how putting money into their pension as early as possible gives them the best possible outcomes in retirement, rather than panicking at the last possible moment to try to increase it.
On the mid-life MOT, free advice is already available for people at the age of 50, but it is drastically under-utilised. The Government could move in the direction of ensuring that when people get their bowel cancer check pack through the post, they also get a date and a time for an appointment with the Pensions Advisory Service, so that they do not have to proactively make it themselves. That would make a massive difference.
Successive Governments have believed that doing that would cause too much uptake and there would not be capacity to provide that service, but as we come to the generation of people who have been auto-enrolled hitting 50, when they are due that mid-life MOT, the benefits would be so great and would provide prospective pensioners with clarity about how much they could get. They could be told that taking the entire thing in cash and putting a chunk of it into a bank account is a truly terrible idea—we know that far too many people do that. I am in favour of anything that the Government can do to expand the free advice service that is there already, but I think that the funding vehicle proposed in amendment 3 is not the right way to go about it. I would like the Government to put more money into it, and many more people getting the advice that they need.
The guidance and targeted support mentioned on Tuesday are incredibly important, increasingly so as we see the trend away from DB schemes towards DC schemes. I was looking at my family’s personal pension the other day, and the amount of money in the DC pot. I do not have the faintest clue what it means. I know something about pensions, but being able to translate that large figure into a monthly amount is simply impossible until it is time to apply for the annuity, when we get the understanding of what our life circumstances look like.
I would like changes to be made to the advice given. I do not think that we are in the right position. I wonder if the review will take some of this into account. On pension sufficiency, as the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said, people being better informed and more engaged with their pensions is an incredibly positive thing, but we are not there yet. More needs to be done to encourage people down that route.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I want to reiterate a lot of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Financial education is key to unlocking many of the challenges that we face in adulthood, whether budgeting, debt management, saving or planning for retirement. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Financial Education Bill, earlier this year; I know we already have an element of it in secondary schools, but we need to go further as a country and ensure that everyone, from the very young upwards, has that education to inform the key decisions in our lives.
I take the hon. Member’s point on DB schemes funding those seeking advice for DC schemes, but it is often the case that members have pensions in both DB and DC schemes: people move quite fluidly from a job in the public sector to one in the private sector, and will inevitably have membership in both DB and DC schemes. The Bill would benefit from the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats.
I also take the hon. Member’s point on the need for better engagement by employers. I know some large companies offer employees mid-life MOTs on financial education and management. Certainly, FTSE 100 companies that I have worked for offer employees that kind of support as they approach retirement. I am sympathetic to new clause 1, which amendment 3 is connected to, because it is essential that as we get older and plan for retirement, we are fully informed on those decisions. I will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
In line with what has been said already, my thought is that plenty of financial education is a good thing; to say that some is worth pursuing and some is not seems a bit at odds with what we have been debating. I echo what colleagues have said about workers who come from a DC scheme into a DB scheme and need that education. I am sure there are many new Members who are in that position—I cannot be the only person who is—and, while I am fortunate enough to have taken pension advice throughout my career, I know many people have not.
For me, this is not something that is mandated, but a suggestion for something that could be done. Providing another alternative and another opportunity for people to receive financial education—particularly people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who have not had it at school, because it was not part of the curriculum at that point—is something we should welcome and not restrict.
The amendment seems to me perfectly sensible. I appreciate why some people might think it does not go far enough, or that the matter will be addressed later in the reporting back that the Government will do on pensions in general, but the emphasis on people around the age of 40 is particularly important, because they still have a good 20 years—or 30 years, potentially; who knows what will come forward from the Government?—to work and to ensure that they maximise returns to achieve adequacy. Having an additional vehicle to do that seems to me a sensible thing, and I put on record my support in the same way that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire has.
Steve Darling
I should start by saying that I do not recognise the purist approach that we have heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. This is an issue close to my heart, because my father, having seen the poverty that his father was in, saved significantly in his private pension scheme as a lorry driver. Sadly, however, he was extremely poorly advised, and as he approached retirement he put thousands and thousands of pounds into equities; then, in the late 1980s, there was a stock market crash. He might as well have burned half of his money. The further we drive the health of the pension industry, the better, and particularly knowledge for those who may not be very much in the financial world.
We heard in evidence from NEST that only 40% of people have even registered online to know what their pension is doing. For people for whom the financial world is a complete challenge—and even for many of us in this room, getting our head around it totally is a bit of a challenge—it is essential that we use every possible lever to make sure that quality advice is available. As Liberal Democrats, we will unashamedly use every opportunity in the Bill to provide high levels of education for those who are in receipt of pensions and to give them as much wind in their sails as possible.
Torsten Bell
I shall give a short speech, because there is a worrying habit developing of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North giving the Government Front-Bench speech for me. I should encourage that as we go on—she might be slightly traumatised by that, but we are where we are. Everybody in this room will agree on the importance of the principle that has been highlighted, and we have just heard a powerful point exactly along those lines.
Although the Government understand the intent behind amendment 3, there are two reasons why we will not support it. The first is a point of principle, which I have already set out: it is for trustees, not the Government, to decide how surpluses that benefit members should take place. We discussed the issue of discretionary benefits just now.
The second reason is less a point of principle and more a matter of reality. The amendment would provide advice only to existing members of specific schemes. I think we all agree, particularly in the light of the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, that the main problems are about the defined-contribution space and people coming up towards retirement. Lots of the people who are in schemes who would be coming forward for surplus release are already drawing down a very well-defined pension income.
It is not the ideal way to focus on the particular problem that we all agree exists, but we completely agree that robust guidance that assures that everyone has access to free and impartial advice is very important. That is the job of the Money and Pensions Service, but I completely hear what has been said about how it needs to go further. I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions, but I urge the hon. Member for Horsham to withdraw his amendment.
John Milne
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. One thing we all absolutely agree on is the importance and centrality of this issue. If there is one area in which I feel the Bill could have gone further, it is this one.
It is a scary thing to look to the future and see all the trends in where we are heading with pension adequacy. The number of people who will have zero or a very small pension is deeply frightening, particularly when we lay alongside that the fact that many of those people will not own their own house and will still be paying private market rent. The state pension is not designed for that.
It is a crucial issue. I appreciate both the Minister’s objection in principle and the practical objections from him and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but we will still push the amendment to a vote. That is more to lay a marker than anything else; I appreciate that our chances of winning the vote are small. We want to lay as much emphasis on the issue as possible. Whether or not it ends up as part of the Bill, perhaps under new clause 1, we want it highlighted.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Steve Darling
I beg to move amendment 264, in clause 9, page 9, line 4, at end insert—
“(e) Where regulations under subsection (2A) lower the funding threshold for a surplus payment to below the full buy-out funding level, the Secretary of State must—
(i) conduct an assessment setting out—
(A) prescribed stress scenarios and their impact on funding,
(B) a maximum permissible extraction percentage for each scenario, and
(C) contingencies to restore funding;
(ii) consult the Pensions Regulator, the FCA, and such actuarial bodies as may be prescribed; and
(iii) lay a report of the assessment before Parliament.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment when the DWP calibrates any extraction threshold below buy-out.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 258, in clause 9, page 9, line 21, leave out
“in subsection (2A), after ‘section’ insert ‘37(2A),’”
and insert
“in subsection (2), after ‘virtue of’ insert ‘(za) section 37(2A)’”.
This amendment would make all regulations on DB surplus extraction subject to the affirmative procedure all times they were made rather than just after first use.
Steve Darling
Amendment 264 would provide a backstop and a check where there are potential extractions and buy-outs. It would give an opportunity for the Secretary of State to cast an eye over the process when the DWP does an assessment. It goes back to safeguarding: as I am sure this Committee will discuss repeatedly, we need to ensure that we have investors’ and beneficiaries’ best interests at heart. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the proposal at face value, as an appropriate guardrail, and I look forward to its endorsement.
Mark Garnier
Conservative amendment 258 would ensure that all regulations made under proposed new section 37(2A) of the Pensions Act 1995, which governs surplus payments from defined-benefit pension schemes, are subject to the affirmative procedure always, not just the first time that they are made. That would give Parliament ongoing oversight and scrutiny of any future regulations in the area. Without the amendment, regulations on defined-benefit surplus extraction would not consistently require parliamentary approval. That would potentially lead to insufficient scrutiny.
The amendment aims to provide better parliamentary control over regulations as they are introduced. The key worry is the risk that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, might use these powers to allow the payment of a surplus at funding levels below buy-out standards at some point in future, which could jeopardise scheme security and could happen without parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment is about improving the transparency and accountability of surplus extraction regulations for DB pension schemes, ensuring that Parliament maintains consistent oversight and guarding against premature surplus extractions that might undermine scheme funding security.
Kirsty Blackman
The Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments are very different methods to achieve a similar outcome. Conservative amendment 258 is a bit wider, in the sense that it would require the affirmative procedure for a wider range of things, but both parties are concerned about the possibility of regulations allowing a surplus below the buy-out threshold level.
I think the amendments are reasonable asks. I am generally in the habit of supporting more scrutiny of regulations; upgrading the requirements for regulations from the negative to the affirmative procedure is very much in my wheelhouse, given that it is so difficult for Parliament to oppose regulations made under the negative procedure unless the Leader of the Opposition puts their name to a motion praying against them. In practice, that very, very rarely happens. Given that both amendments are asking for relatively small changes to ensure increased parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where the threshold drops below the buy-out level, I think that they are not unreasonable. I am happy to support them both.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Members for Torbay and for Wyre Forest for their amendments. On amendment 264, I hope that I have already reassured hon. Members that there are many safeguards built into the policy for surplus release, both at an individual scheme level and at a wider policy level, including the ultimate control of trustees, the need for prudent funding to be maintained and the actuarial certification.
The Government’s view is that it is not for the Secretary of State to assess every single scheme in the way that the amendment intends. To offer some more reassurance, however, TPR and the PPF have carried out scenario testing in this area; we heard the PPF chief executive’s reassurance in oral evidence on Tuesday. In that regard, I do not think the amendment is necessary. It would also involve the Secretary of State holding a lot of evidence about every single DB scheme in the country, which I do not think is a good use of resources.
Kirsty Blackman
The point is about the regulations on the surplus and the times at which schemes can pay it. It is not about looking at each individual scheme; it is about looking at the level that is set in the regulations. Much as I am sure that the Minister is having a lovely birthday, he would probably admit that he is not going to be the Pensions Minister in perpetuity. It is unlikely that he will still be the Pensions Minister in 50 years’ time. He may therefore not have control of these regulations. This is about putting guardrails in place so that, no matter who is in government, the level cannot be reduced below the full buy-out funding level.
Torsten Bell
I think I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempt to fire me. To clarify, carrying out the kind of prescribed stress scenarios and assessments set out in the amendment would require the Department for Work and Pensions to examine the DB landscape. In this specific area, that is the role of TPR and the PPF.
I turn to amendment 258. The first regulations on surplus will be subject to the affirmative procedure, for exactly the reasons that have been set out, and exactly because at that point they will be new but also comprehensive. As with every other pensions Bill, what we do not want to see is the affirmative procedure being used for small, technical changes that come to those regulations in the years that follow. However, our approach does allow for the necessary debate when those regulations are made. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to support the Bill as drafted.
Steve Darling
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 258, in clause 9, page 9, line 21, leave out
“in subsection (2A), after ‘section’ insert ‘37(2A),’”
and insert
“in subsection (2), after ‘virtue of’ insert ‘(za) section 37(2A)’”.—(Mark Garnier.)
This amendment would make all regulations on DB surplus extraction subject to the affirmative procedure all times they were made rather than just after first use.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Torsten Bell
Clause 9 will amend the safeguards on the sharing of surplus. The details will be set out in regulations, the parliamentary procedures of which we have just discussed. These safeguards will place the safety of members’ benefits at the heart of the policy.
Proposed new subsection (2B) of section 37 of the Pensions Act 1995 sets out the requirements, which are there to protect members, that must be set out in regulations before trustees can pay a surplus to the employer—namely that before a trustee can agree to release a surplus, they will first be required to receive an actuarial certification that the scheme meets a prudent funding threshold, and that members must be notified before surplus is released.
The funding threshold will be set out in regulations, which we will consult on, as discussed. We expect that release of the surplus will be permitted only when a scheme is fully funded on a low-dependency basis. Trustees are already required, through existing legislation, to set a long-term funding and investment strategy that targets exactly this funding level. These funding conditions will be set out in regulations made under the affirmative procedure and debated when first introduced.
Proposed new subsection (2C) will provide the ability to introduce additional regulations aimed at further enhancing member protections, where considered appropriate. Superfunds will be subject to their own regime for profit extraction; I am spelling this out, because we will come to it later in the Bill. The proposed new subsection will allow regulations to be made that are consistent with those provisions. Regulations may prevent payments from superfunds for a period, if surplus regulations come into force earlier than the superfund legislation, which we will debate later in the Bill. Crucially, decisions to release any surplus will remain subject to trustee discretion. I also note the removal of the statutory test in section 37(3)(d) of the Pensions Act, on the grounds that it does no more than reflect trustees’ existing duties.
The technical and consequential amendments at subsections (4) to (7) of clause 9 are to ensure that the new measures sit correctly in existing legislation but do not affect the overall policy. In summary, the clause will ensure that the release of a surplus is subject to strict safeguards. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Relevant schemes: value for money
Steve Darling
I beg to move amendment 269, in clause 10, page 10, line 10, at end insert—
“(aa) make, publish and keep under review the consistency of—
(i) regulated VFM schemes, or
(ii) regulated VFM arrangements,
with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy;”.
This amendment, with Amendment 270, would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 272, in clause 10, page 10, line 10, at end insert—
“(aa) make, publish and keep under review the compliance of—
(i) regulated VFM schemes, or
(ii) regulated VFM arrangements,
with statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges by water and sewerage undertakers,”.
This amendment, with Amendment 273, would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the compliance of water and sewerage companies they invest in with targets for reducing sewage discharges.
Amendment 270, in clause 10, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
“(d) publish or share with prescribed persons, for the purpose of enabling VFM assessments to be made, prescribed categories of information (referred to as ‘climate alignment metric data’) regarding the scheme’s exposure to climate-related financial risks and the alignment of its investments with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy.”
This amendment, with Amendment 269, would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement.
Amendment 273, in clause 10, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
“(d) publish or share with prescribed persons, for the purpose of enabling VFM assessments to be made, prescribed categories of information (referred to as ‘sewage discharge compliance data’) regarding the scheme’s exposure to, and investment in, companies holding permits to discharge sewage, including those companies’ performance against statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges.”
This amendment, with Amendment 272, would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the compliance of water and sewerage companies they invest in with targets for reducing sewage discharges.
Amendment 271, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(iv) the consistency of the investment portfolio with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy, including metrics for assessing climate-related financial risks and opportunities;”.
This amendment would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement.
Amendment 274, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(iv) the compliance of the investment portfolio with statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges by water and sewerage undertakers, including metrics for assessing related environmental and financial risks and opportunities;”.
This amendment would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the performance of water and sewerage companies they invest in against targets for reducing sewage discharges.
Steve Darling
In tabling these amendments, we wanted to make sure that we calibrated them carefully. It is not about giving a clear instruction that says, “You must do this”; it is about ensuring that investors are alive to the Paris agreement on climate change and clean energy and that our water companies are complying with cleaning up our rivers and seas. Introducing a duty to report on how funds are having an impact on that would ensure a level of awareness without dictating to investors and thereby having an impact on the fiduciary duties that trustees should clearly have.
Throughout the Bill, the Government have quite rightly highlighted how pensions can be a force for good for our economy and for those who invest in it. The amendments would reinforce that approach. On climate change, clean energy and cleaning up our seas and rivers, the amendments are writ much larger, without interfering in where the money should be invested.
Mark Garnier
These are not amendments that we feel particularly inclined to support. They would require pension fund managers to make, publish and keep under review data to show that their portfolio investments are consistent with the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change and clean energy. That would include publishing prescribed information relating to climate change alignment and sewage discharge. Those are immensely important and worthy ambitions and intentions; we share their spirit, as we want a cleaner planet, cleaner waterways and improvements to our climate, but I do not think that this is the place to do it. Pension funds should be allowed to look at the best interests of their members, irrespective of wider public and social aspirations, so this is not a proposal that we feel we can support.
Kirsty Blackman
I think this is the place to do it. In fact, I think every place is the place to do it. When we debated the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022, for example, I proposed that the organisation should be created on a net zero basis. I have tabled many amendments to whatever Bill I have been faced with that have included trying to meet our Paris agreement targets. I have served on Bill Committees quite a lot in the past few years—something my party keeps putting me up to do, for some reason.
The Paris agreement is the biggest issue. I have spoken already about how trustees are required to act in the interests of scheme members’ pensions rather than the interests of scheme members themselves. The Labour Government have tried to overcome that more generally, in terms of decision-making powers. They have tried to do that in Wales with the Future Generations Commissioner, who has the ability to judicially review decisions taken by public bodies in Wales. They can be called in for judicial review, and the Future Generations Commissioner can say, “This decision will cause a problem for future generations. It should be reviewed.” The Government are failing in their ambition to do the same thing in this Parliament. It is bizarre that I am about the only person in this place shouting about how great the Welsh Labour Government’s Future Generations Commissioner is—it is a really good idea.
When people out there are asked what the major issues currently facing the world are, many—particularly younger people—say that climate change is the biggest crisis we face. Scientists tell us that too, so it is completely reasonable that we ask everybody involved with anything to consider the impact of their decision making on our net zero target and on climate change. We ask all sorts of organisations to consider environmental, social and governance impacts. This is another time to do that, because we are creating a value for money framework anyway. We want value for money, but we want the best value—value for future generations. There is no point in everybody having great pensions if they do not live to see them because the planet is not here for them.
If we ask scheme members what they want, I think a significant number would say, “I would like more investment in things that make the planet a better place. I would like more investment in renewable energy and insulation for houses.” They would say that those are some of their priorities. They would obviously still like a guaranteed return too, but it is completely reasonable, in terms of the value for money framework and the best interests of people out there, that we consider the Paris climate change agreement. Sewage is important too, but it is not quite the existential crisis that climate change is.
A value for money framework must look at value for money in a wider sense. One of the things we have spoken about in Scotland a significant number of times is population wellbeing. The Scottish Government are finally members of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. That is not necessarily about saying that GDP is not important; it is about saying that gross domestic wellbeing is important, and that sometimes we must take decisions that are slightly more expensive but will have a significantly less negative, or more positive, impact on the planet or the wellbeing of the population.
When we think about a value for money framework, it is completely reasonable to talk about the Paris agreement. It is completely reasonable to ask about it in respect of any Government decision. I have written to the Chancellor in the past to ask for a carbon assessment to be published alongside the Budget—what is the impact on the Paris climate change agreement of the tax and spending decisions taken in the Budget, and how do they get us closer to our target?
I am happy to support all the amendments. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, they are not about forcing people to take decisions that are net zero in nature; they are about forcing them to consider the Paris agreement, or the regulatory targets for sewage discharges, when taking decisions. I do not think it is too much for us to ask trustees to be mindful of the impact on the planet of the decisions they are taking.
The vast majority of people in my constituency do not have significant savings. If we look at the general population, we see that about 50% of people have less than 100 quid in savings. They have very little money and are not able to invest in renewables projects. They are not able to direct their money because they do not have any money to invest. What a lot of them do have, following auto-enrolment, is pots of money invested in pensions, but they have very little ability to influence how that money is spent. Scheme trustees have a significant amount of ability to influence where money is invested, but scheme members do not, in the main, have that ability. If we asked people where they would like to see their pensions invested, many of them would pick things that might offer slightly less of a return but are significantly better for the planet. The aims in the amendments are admirable and I am happy to support them.
John Milne
I rise to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said. As has been emphasised, we are not talking about making things mandatory. It is about making things possible, because there have been cases in which managers take a rather narrow view of fiduciary duty and almost deliberately exclude other considerations. It is about removing that blockage. We feel that the requirement in the amendment is of value and hope that the Minister will consider it.
It is also worth saying that very often one cannot definitively say that one investment will be better than another. There are all the projections and estimates. If it was that clear, every single fund would have the same 10 investments and that would be the end of it, and it would be a very small industry. It is often a matter of assertion, or a calculation. It is often not a case of choosing a lesser return; any return is conjectural in the first place.
Torsten Bell
My support for the Welsh Government’s Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is on the record, so I get to disagree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North on something, which will be a relief for everybody.
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the amendments. Clearly, addressing climate change is absolutely central to this Government’s agenda. It needs to be done in the right way. Pension funds hold significant capital, and I am pleased to say that at every conference and every session I hold with people involved in the industry I see that investors and pension schemes do now use their influence on companies to encourage them to take responsible action. That has been a big change over the course of the last decade. It can lead to better risk management and potentially also improve returns on investments, as well as helping companies to perform better in relation to environmental targets.
My overall argument, though, is that trustees must already consider financially material risks, including ESG factors. The statement of investment principles and the implementation statement are key tools that are already in place for disclosing a scheme’s approach to ESG issues, including climate change. Ultimately, the amendment is about disclosures; that is what it aims to achieve. Additionally, large schemes with assets above £1 billion, which in future will be the majority of schemes because of the scale measures that we will come back to, must also report on climate-related risks and opportunities, in line with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.
We are looking to strengthen sustainability reporting, exactly as the hon. Member for Torbay wishes to see, through new UK sustainability reporting standards and our transition plan’s commitment, which the Government consulted on this summer. Taken together, our policy initiatives will modernise the UK’s framework for corporate reporting, giving pension schemes vital information about companies’ decarbonisation plans and about whether to escalate their engagement efforts with investee companies on environmental issues. The DWP is contributing to that work and will review the effectiveness of climate reporting requirements later this year, as part of our post-implementation review of the requirements of the Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures.
Given the existing reporting requirements, the Government’s position is that we will gently resist the amendments, to avoid duplication.
Steve Darling
Climate change is an existential threat to humanity, and although sewage may not be such a threat, it is still a significant issue; indeed, it is a wicked issue that needs to be tackled by our society as a whole. I wish to press the amendment to a vote, to show the Committee’s intent ahead of the Bill’s next stage.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mark Garnier
I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 10, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) Value for money regulations must require responsible trustees and managers to make an assessment of, benchmark and regularly report the—
(a) net benefit outcomes,
(b) investment performance,
(c) quality of service, and
(d) long term members outcomes
of regulated VFM schemes.”
This amendment broadens the definition of value for money to require assessment of net benefit outcome, investment performance, quality of service, and long-term member outcomes, and require schemes to report on these.
On the wider point about value for money, we broadly support the introduction of a robust value for money framework as set out in clause 10. The framework, which was initially introduced under the previous Government, is essential to promoting transparency and accountability in the management of defined-contribution pension schemes, and it mandates responsible trustees or managers to assess and publish reports on the performance of their schemes. Ultimately, that should mean improved performance. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that there are potentially perverse outcomes —as we have seen, for example, with the Phoenix Group—as the consequences of an intermediate rating could drive less growth. I suppose it could be a less risky approach, but greater risk can lead to greater growth. None the less, we need to be careful as there could be perverse outcomes.
I tabled the amendment as we are worried that the current value for money framework for defined-contribution pensions risks focusing too narrowly on costs and charges as the primary determinant of value for members. By contrast, the Australian superannuation system adopts a more holistic definition of value for money, including a net benefit outcome metric, which is defined as the sum of contributions and investment earnings minus all costs, fees, taxes and insurance premiums. Australian trustees are required not only to consider costs, but to act in members’ best financial interests, broadly encompassing factors beyond merely minimising fees. The Australian framework incorporates additional core metrics including service quality, investment performance and member outcomes. This broader approach reflects a more comprehensive assessment of value for money delivered to members.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what “long term members outcomes” means? Does it mean people that have been members of the scheme for a long time, or does it mean members’ outcomes over the long term? The amendment is ambiguous.
Mark Garnier
That is a very good question. Ultimately it means, “What is the performance of the fund?” Members’ best interests can include a lot of different things, but ultimately we need to see the fund grow with the best performance it possibly can, given all things brought together. When members start to receive their pensions, they will therefore get the best terms they possibly can.
We run the risk of trying to look at the wrong definition. For example, there has been an argument recently about the local government pension scheme—this came up earlier this week—with the Reform party talking about the fact that the scheme is charging 50 basis points. The argument is that reducing it to 10 basis points would save money. However, as I was discussing with a Government Back Bencher the other day, one of the problems is that if fees are too low, that reduces the ability of the managers to assess more complicated financial opportunities. If fees are kept at 50 basis points, the capacity to start analysing unlisted investments is retained. If fees are reduced to 10 basis points, the ability and skill of the managers to look into more than investing in other people’s funds or into simple listed equities is reduced. If we start to look at it as a cost-based issue only, we miss out the fact that we get quite a lot of extra expertise if slightly higher management fees are paid.
The Australian framework incorporates additional core metrics including service quality, investment performance and outcomes. There is a concern that the UK value for money framework overemphasises costs and risks discouraging investment in asset classes, as I discussed, that historically produced higher returns but that might have higher shorter-term fees or complexities. This narrow focus could also dampen innovation in pension scheme design and reduce member engagement, ultimately harming long-term retirement outcomes for scheme members. It may be valuable to learn from the Australian approach by developing a value for money framework that balances cost transparency with metrics that encourage good investment strategies and quality services, aligning regulators’ and trustees’ incentives with members’ long-term financial interests.
Our amendment tries to broaden the definition of value for money using the Australian model as a template. It would require the assessment of net benefit outcome, investment performance, quality of service and long-term member outcomes, not just cost. It would introduce a requirement for schemes to report and benchmark across these holistic measures, thereby enabling a more balanced and meaningful comparison of value.
Torsten Bell
I think there is more agreement than the hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out, because we all agree that we want to focus not just on cost and charges. I remind everybody that we were discussing the local government pension scheme this morning—
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his remarks on the value for money scheme, which I welcome, and to put on the record that I am a member of the local government pension scheme. I did not have an opportunity to do that earlier.
Torsten Bell
We are now turning to the value for money framework, which relates to defined-contribution schemes. As I said, we are aiming for a full spectrum of value to be considered by the framework.
I do not think I would normally say this, but I am worried that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is lacking a bit of patriotism, because the Australian scheme does not take into account some of the wider metrics, such as customer service, that he is rightly encouraging the scheme to focus on, whereas the intention in the Bill is exactly as he sets out—that we should be taking into account not only those longer-term returns, which are ultimately what we should all care about, but also customer service. I completely endorse his objectives.
The value for money clauses have been drafted in a way that allows the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility to set out in regulations the categories of information for the VFM assessments of the kind that are set out in the amendment, such that we can adapt to changes in the pension landscape and learn from operational experiences, as we are already learning from the experience in Australia. There are things to learn from Australia that have gone well, and there are certainly things to learn from that have gone less well. Although the amendment recognises the importance of assessing value across all the pillars of value, it is vital that we do not restrict the framework by embedding the exact details of the categories of information in the primary legislation.
VFM metrics, benchmarks and the assessment process will be specified through regulations, providing clarity for industry on how to report on and assess value provided by in-scope schemes—which, as I said, are basically at this stage workplace defined contribution schemes. Over time, those will be reviewed to make sure that they continue to reflect market changes and the needs of savers. For those reasons, we believe that the clauses are spot on. I urge the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to withdraw the amendment.
Mark Garnier
I thank the Minister for a great effort—“spot on”, maybe, but we still feel inclined to press the amendment to a vote. That is important, even though we know that, rather depressingly, we will probably lose it—although who knows? You never know. It is important to put on the record that we feel that certain measures can be pushed forward, so we will be pressing the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Order. Before we have the roll call on this Division, I should say that the House of Commons does not recognise abstentions. If people do not wish to vote, they normally say, “No vote” in Committee.
Torsten Bell
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 10, page 11, leave out line 9 and insert—
“an occupational pension scheme that provides money purchase benefits.”
This amendment ensures that the value for money framework is capable of applying to hybrid schemes (that is, schemes that provide both money purchase benefits and other benefits).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 10, page 11, line 9, leave out—
“a money purchase scheme that is”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 2, would ensure that the value for money provisions introduced by this Bill apply to all occupational pension schemes.
Amendment 2, in clause 10, page 11, line 14, at end insert—
“(14) Value for money regulations may make different provision for different descriptions of relevant pension schemes and must make provision for the application of the value for money assessment with a VFM rating to defined benefit occupational pension schemes.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 1, would ensure that the value for money provisions introduced by this Bill apply to all occupational pension schemes.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 35.
Torsten Bell
Amendments 28 and 35 introduce changes into chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 28 ensures that the value for money framework is capable of applying to hybrid schemes—schemes that provide both money purchase benefits and other benefits. Amendment 35 is minor and consequential to amendment 28. The amendments are of a minor and technical nature and do not alter the policy. I commend them to the Committee.
On a point of order, Sir Christopher, should I proceed to comment on the other amendments or allow those proposing other amendments to come forward before I turn to the clause stand part?
Torsten Bell
On we go! I was going to thank the hon. Member for Torbay for his words on his amendments, but I shall move on to them anyway, and to clause stand part. Ultimately, value for money is a much-needed member protection measure for savers enrolled in a defined contribution scheme. I should remind the Committee why we have it and why it is so important: because the risk of poor value for money now lies in the defined contribution market to such a large extent with individual savers. That is what the Bill is ultimately, most importantly, about.
It is important to remember that members of defined benefit pension schemes already have protections and benefit from the sponsor employer shouldering all that risk, as was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Those employers also have greater agency to deal with the value-related issues, such as the effective administration of their pension schemes.
Clause 10 sets out that certain pension schemes and arrangements will be in scope for the value for money framework. The clause provides regulation-making powers to specify the types of schemes and arrangements that will be in scope of the value for money requirements. We envisage that those initially in scope will be default occupational pension schemes offering defined contribution benefits. That is fundamental, given that the vast majority of defined contribution savers are saving into exactly those kind of pension schemes. To spell out what that means, we are not talking about non-workplace defined contribution pensions—that is, personal pensions. There is a regulatory power to extend in future if required, but initially we are talking about workplace defined contribution pension schemes.
With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay will not press his amendment, and I commend clause 10 to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak to clause 10 and the consultations that the Secretary of State will undertake in advance of making the value for money regulations. Subsection (7) says:
“The Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before— (a) making value for money regulations; (b) issuing guidance under subsection (6).”
I appreciate that that is in there—it should be in there, as it is important. However, I do not know the road map off the top of my head, although the Minister might. Will the value for money regulations be published in draft in advance of the final decisions being made? I understand that they will go through the affirmative procedure when they do come before Parliament, but, in order to consult, will the Secretary of State publish the drafted regulations so that all of us can see them?
Also, on the right people to consult, I would always recommend that the Secretary of State runs those regulations before the Select Committee in advance of publishing them, so that it can suggest any changes. It is far easier for the changes to be made in advance of the statutory instrument being laid, when it is in draft form, than for there to be an argument in a Delegated Legislation Committee—I am sure that nobody on either side of the House wants there to be arguments in a Delegated Legislation Committee. We would all, I am sure, hope that there would be widespread agreement in advance.
The value for money regulations are really important, and it is important that they are got right. I am pleased that there is to be a consultation, but I push the Minister to agree that it will be significant—not just a couple of people in advance—so that potential problems with the value for money regulations are ironed out, and we do not see 273 amendments to them down the line.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I should say that it is not clear to me whether Mr Darling wishes to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which are in this grouping.
Steve Darling
That had eluded me, Sir Christopher, so thank you for drawing me out on this one. Amendments 1 and 2 ensure that there is consistency and that there are no gaps where schemes could perhaps fall between the cracks of legislation. We feel that the amendments would give that continuity of support to schemes.
Torsten Bell
In response to the hon. Member for Torbay, I should say that I have already set out the case for the value for money framework not covering defined benefit pension schemes, which is what the effect of the amendment would be.
To the questions raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, broadly, the answer is yes: the regulations will be published in detail as part of the consultation. Significant consultations have already gone on with a very wide range of stakeholders, both by the TPR and by the Financial Conduct Authority. There are further consultations, and then draft regulations, to come. It is worth thinking about how a lot of the changes in the Bill reinforce each other. It is important that we make reasonably swift progress on the value for money regulations, because the value for money regime is a requirement for us to be able to then make progress on some of the other bits that we will come to discuss, such as contract override and, indeed, small pots.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Publication etc of metric data
Torsten Bell
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 11, page 11, line 34, after “publication” insert “or sharing”.
This amendment ensures that information on the database mentioned in clause 11(2)(d) can be made available to (for example) the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for the purpose of internal review, as well as made available for publication.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 11—Sharing of database where FCA makes corresponding rules.
Let me explain: although we often debate new clauses as parts of a group, the decisions on the new clauses will be taken after everything else. If Members look at the amendment paper, they will see that that is the situation.
Torsten Bell
Thank you, Sir Christopher. A central part of assessing whether a pension scheme or arrangement is providing value to the saver is how it performs in terms of investment, the quality of the service provided and costs. Having standardised performance metrics and a consistent measure of value will allow for easy and better comparisons across arrangements, which in turn will drive schemes to address poor value.
That is why clause 11 provides the powers necessary to ensure that schemes disclose value for money data on areas such as investment performance, including the types of assets being invested in, the quality of the service provided and charges on members. This information will have to be submitted within specified timescales. It is crucial that the metric data is open to public scrutiny, so clause 11 provides powers to require that the metrics are published and available on an electronic database. To ensure standardisation, regulations may also require the Pensions Regulator to set out the format that information should be submitted in. The powers taken in this clause will enable the creation of consistent, transparent and comparable VFM data to allow us to better understand which schemes are providing best possible value.
I turn to new clause 11, which will be inserted into chapter 1 of part 2. It provides clarity on the use of the electronic database mentioned at clause 11. Where the Financial Conduct Authority has made rules for contract-based schemes that correspond to VFM regulations, it will be permitted to use the electronic database. The new clause therefore facilitates the work of the FCA by facilitating schemes to provide that data to the electronic database. It provides for regulations to permit the use of the electronic database for the publication or sharing of information relating to contract-based schemes. The regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
The context is that we have been clear from the outset that, for the value for money framework to work effectively, it must apply consistently across both trust-based and contract-based sides of the market. The new clause enables that to happen. It is purely technical in nature and will ensure that value for money data is treated consistently across both those two parts of the market. It does not alter the policy. I commend it to the Committee.
I turn to Government amendment 29, which introduces a change to chapter 1 of part 2. The amendment ensures that information on the database can be made available to, for example, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for the purpose of internal review. A large amount of high-quality data is being collected via that process, and it will be able to be made available to the Secretary of State or others, as well as being used for its main purpose under the Bill, which is obviously publication. The amendment is of a minor and technical nature and does not alter the policy. I commend clause 11 and the amendment to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
This seems like a very technical clause, and we certainly have no objections to it. I also have no doubt that we will not be voting against the Government amendment. I think we are very happy with it.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a similar question to the one I had earlier. We need to ensure that those responsible for generating the data are kept in the loop and that they have enough of a timeline to create the correct data. The Government must listen if they say, “We’re very sorry, but we can’t this bit of data in the way that the Government want.” I seek reassurance from the Government that this would be a conversation, so that the Government get the data they want, but that an unreasonable burden will not be placed on the trustees or managers who have to provide that data. That conversation needs to continue as time goes on.
Torsten Bell
The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that that conversation is going on to a huge degree. Because there are so many lessons to be learned from abroad and so many technical questions to be worked through, including about the provision of data—these are important technical questions for the scheme to work and be operationalised—there is a high level of consultation on the value for money framework. It is absolutely an ongoing conversation. It was happening for some time under the previous Government, and it is continuing now. Another phase of that discussion will be launched in the near future and will continue as we move to the operational phase.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
VFM assessments
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 42—Holistic Value for Money Assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require that any value for money assessment framework for defined contribution pension schemes includes holistic indicators beyond cost and return.
(2) The framework must include consideration of—
(a) whether the scheme offers access to free or subsidised pension advice or guidance;
(b) the frequency and impact of pension transfer delays for members;
(c) other qualitative indicators as may be prescribed, including those related to member engagement and support services.
(3) Regulations under this section may require that—
(a) schemes are rated according to both quantitative and qualitative indicators of value;
(b) schemes publicly disclose their performance against these holistic criteria;
(c) the frequency of assessment is sufficient to ensure up-to-date information for regulators and members.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause ensures that the value for money framework for defined contribution schemes includes whether schemes offer free or subsidised advice, and the extent to which pension transfer delays occur and affect member outcomes.
Torsten Bell
To ensure effective comparability across arrangements, it is necessary to have a clear and standardised assessment of how value is determined. Clause 12 will enable those undertaking the assessment to be clear about the method that they should follow and the criteria to be used. It will allow regulations to detail how a VFM assessment is to be made, the factors that need to be taken into account when making comparisons, the metrics to be used and, importantly, how such comparisons should be made. The clause also gives the flexibility for VFM regulations to introduce benchmarks that schemes should compare their arrangements against. That is necessary to improve comparability and transparency, and to help drive competition among schemes. That will help improve returns for members.
I turn to new clause 42, tabled by the Liberal Democrats; I am grateful to them for their contributions to the debate. Measuring the quality of services provided to members is an important aspect of the VFM framework—I support that entirely. It ensures that we assess not only the quantitative value provided by pension schemes, but the qualitative. Under the VFM framework, the Secretary of State will have the power to require schemes in scope to report on and assess the quality of the services provided to their members; I just made the point about the absence of that in Australia but the fact that it will have a role within our framework. Clause 11 provides for categories of information that schemes may be required to disclose to include
“the quality of services provided to members of the scheme”.
Further detail on the metrics for measuring quality of services will be set out in regulations. It is crucial that metrics are set out in the regulations so that we have flexibility to respond to changes in the pensions market and to learn from operational delivery—again, that is something we have seen in Australia. For that reason, we believe that the current legislative framework is sufficient. I ask the hon. Member for Torbay not to press the new clause.
Mark Garnier
Clause 12 seems fairly reasonable in its approach. Liberal Democrat new clause 42 seems in the broadest sense to follow our amendment 254 in respect of the Australian model; should it be pressed to a vote, we would be happy to support it. I have nothing more to add.
Steve Darling
As I stated earlier, one of our key drivers is making sure that people are able to make quality, informed decisions about their financial long-term future. The debate on the new clause drives that agenda. I am sure that the Minister has the best intentions, but what we are discussing is still within regulations that have yet to break cover. We would be more comfortable if it was in the Bill rather than tucked away in regulations. We will seek to press the new clause to a vote when the time comes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Member satisfaction surveys
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
It will be a great relief to everybody to hear that clause 13, although vital, is relatively small. Importantly, it enables requirements relating to member satisfaction surveys, of a kind that I know hon. Members are supportive of, to be set out in the value for money regulations. As I have just argued, quality of service is one of the key pillars of the value for money assessment, and member satisfaction is a key aspect within that pillar. These surveys will allow schemes to better understand their members’ experience and to gauge just how good a service they are providing for scheme members. Members’ experiences and views on the quality of service will provide inputs to the holistic assessment of value that this entire part of the Bill aims to offer.
Mark Garnier
We are very happy with this measure. One of the important points, which has been made on a number of occasions, is to do with the wider financial education piece. One would hope that the satisfaction surveys would ask not only whether members of pension schemes are being given sufficient information, but whether they are being taught how to understand what that information means. That is quite important. It is more of a cultural thing than something that should go into the Bill. When we start talking about the complexities of pension funds, it does not necessarily mean a huge amount to the vast majority of people out there, and customer satisfaction surveys should be constructed on that basis. We need to ensure action on that financial education piece, but aside from that, we are very happy to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
VFM ratings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
Central to the value for money framework is the assignment of value for money ratings. We discussed that briefly during the evidence session on Tuesday, and some hard questions were asked of me by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest; this clause will help to explain more about it. Rating or scoring a scheme’s value is a major cornerstone of the VFM policy. It is essential to helping savers and employers make informed decisions; they would otherwise have to analyse a very large amount of data. The finer details behind the ratings, such as the conditions under which each rating will apply and when they should be used, will be provided in full in regulations. That will provide clarity and allow the framework to evolve with the market.
After a VFM assessment, trustees or a manager will be required to assign a VFM rating. The clause describes the three categories of ratings that will be used in the VFM regime: fully delivering, intermediate and not delivering. As I pointed out on Tuesday, there are multiple levels available within intermediate—it is not a one-size-fits-all box.
Arrangements rated as fully delivering are those deemed to be providing best value for their members. At the opposite end of the scale, we have the “not delivering” grade. For those arrangements rated as not delivering, trustees will have to draw up an action plan of next steps to move pension savers to an arrangement that is providing value, thus avoiding persistent underperformance affecting members for long periods of time.
Arrangements given an intermediate rating will be those that require more work to improve their value to members. They may be required to inform employers of a “not delivering” rating and to produce an improvement plan that outlines the steps they plan to take towards improvement. That, in turn, will help employers to be better informed of the status of the schemes or arrangements that their staff are enrolled in and allow businesses to make better informed choices when it comes to workplace pensions.
The clause provides flexibility for multiple subcategories of the intermediate rating, meaning that the rating system is not limited to three ratings. To help tackle potential gaming of the VFM regime, we will tighten the rules on how some schemes choose comparators, so that schemes are not able to self-select the comparators they are able to use. That will be done by defining what a scheme should be comparing itself against and detailing the metrics that will determine whether a scheme is providing value. We will of course consult on the draft regulations.
Mark Garnier
In a broad sense, we are very happy to support the clause. There are, though, a number of issues, and the point about benchmarking and what performance is being valued against can be rather complicated. We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay, a little earlier about his father’s experience of putting money aside and finding himself wanting to take it out in October 1987—I remember it well; I had been a dealer on the floor of the London stock exchange, so a stock market crash was a pretty hideous thing. However, if we look at a chart of the FTSE 100 from the early 1980s up to now and the 1987 crash, although I think it was down 37% at one point, looks like the smallest of blips in what was otherwise a very long-term bull market that continues to this day.
The one thing we do know for sure is that those wanting better performance are likely to be investing in slightly more volatile assets. That can come from investing in equities or higher-growth businesses. There is no doubt that some higher-growth businesses will go bust, because they are taking risks, but ultimately, how many of us wish we had put more money into Amazon, Google or Apple back in the late 1990s? At the time it was not necessarily seen as a brilliant thing, but some of these businesses have done unbelievably well. That said, how can anybody understand how a company like Tesla, which is really a battery manufacturer, is worth more than General Motors, Ford and Chrysler? It does not necessarily make a huge amount of sense, and yet people are still investing in it.
We can find ourselves looking at the value for money framework and come up with a load of benchmarks, which brings us to the point about the intermediate rating. We could find that an intermediate rating is done at a time when there are particular problems in the stock market, yet, looking at the long term, we could have what could turn out to be a stunning performance. We have to be very careful and not find ourselves throwing out the good in favour of the perfect. This will be something quite complicated; I do not necessarily think it is something for the Bill to worry about, but, as we continue the discourse of pensions performance and adequacy, we need to be very careful that we do not become obsessed with ruling out risk.
There is a big argument about risk in our economy at the moment, which, again, is not for this place, but we could find ourselves ruling out risk. The other thing worth bearing in mind is that, by ruling out risk, we could stop money being invested into businesses that may look absolutely bonkers today, but turn out to be the next Apple, Amazon or Google. We just have to be careful about that.
I suspect we shall have lots of debates over this. The Pensions Minister is on such a meteoric career progression at the moment that I am sure he will find himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer before very long—probably quicker than he imagines—but this is something that we need to keep an eye on. As I say, it is about making sure that we do not rule out the good in pursuit of the perfect.
Rebecca Smith
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech with a very good historical analysis of what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years. It is worth reflecting on the risk point, particularly for the wide age range of people who hold pensions. This came up during the evidence session: if we end up avoiding risk, the people who are just starting out in their careers and might only be in their early 20s or 30s could end up with a pension that does not deliver anywhere near what it could have delivered, if we apply those same factors. A thought that came to me in the evidence session was how we can ensure that our system allows for risk at the bottom end, but with a tapering out of risk as people get older. The Minister is the expert in this area, and I am interested to know what might be possible in the future. Ultimately, we want to ensure that value for money is based on the right level of risk for the right stage in people’s careers and the right stage in their pensions journey.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The story that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay, told about his father is the most important point here. As we come to the point where we want to cash in the defined-contribution pension, we could find ourselves cashing in at completely the wrong moment. In a stock market crash, although it could be just a blip in a long-term bull market, none the less the hon. Member’s father would have seen a 37% drop in the value of his equities if he was benchmarked to the FTSE 100. If he was in higher growth businesses, he could, as the hon. Member said, have seen a 50% drop. So we have to be very careful.
We can be as risky as we like when we are 21 years old. I cannot remember whether it was Adam Smith or Einstein who said that the eighth great wonder of the world is compound interest. Obviously we want to take risk early but, as we come up to that day when we finally turn our papers in and go home on the last day of work, we need to make sure we have got as much money out of our pension fund as we possibly can. That is why it is important to ensure that the VFM framework does not cause problems.
Steve Darling
This is a very interesting debate as lives continue to lengthen. In terms of people’s capabilities at different ages, 70 is probably the new 60. The reality is that someone might want to take out a proportion of their pension and hope for growth into their 80s, and then crystallise it at that stage of their life. Not that long ago, we had to buy an annuity, and there was not much choice, so we hit a hard wall. There is greater flexibility in the system now.
I want to talk about chickens. We heard talk in the evidence earlier this week of herding chickens, and of people not wanting to be the only white chicken in brown chicken world. It is about allowing the risk that drives growth. We know that allowing that risk can also drive a more vibrant economy. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how this framework can avoid that herding and how he would do that. I fear that the answer will be, “It will all be in the regulations and secondary legislation”, but some words of wisdom from the Minister would be welcome.
Torsten Bell
I always aim to provide words of wisdom—say one in 100. Let me engage directly with the points about the nature of the arrangement. The honest answer is that lots of it will be in regulations, but the exact issues raised by both main Opposition parties are ones that we have thought a significant amount about.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest is right to say that risk aversion generally can be dangerous within the system, in just the same way that excessive risk-taking can be dangerous. He raised two specific issues. One was how short-term market developments affect ratings—that is why the benchmarking is a relative process. Relative benchmarking deals with the ups and downs of the stock market or other asset valuations—we are assessing the relative performance, not the absolute performance.
The hon. Gentleman raises a separate question on the nature of the investment we want to look at, where there may be returns over different timescales. That is why we need to look at different measures and metrics, some of which are backward looking—for example, more standard measures of value for money—and some of which might be forward looking—for example, looking at the costs and asset allocation strategy to come to a view about what forward-looking returns might look like relatively. We have thought about that in some detail.
We then had a useful discussion about life stages—when someone moves from higher risk, because they are confident that they will not be retiring in the middle of a 1987-style downturn. That is exactly what we should be thinking about. One of the objectives of the Bill as a whole is to drive higher returns on average. Later lifestyling, as it is called, into safe assets means that someone can be exposed to some growth potential for longer over their life. When we come to discuss the default pension solutions, that is exactly why, on average, that approach will drive safer outcomes.
At the moment, defined-contribution pension schemes often put people into very safe assets—almost entirely bonds—in the run-up to their retirement. That would not be necessary if we knew that they were heading for a default solution with annuitisation or lifetime income coming in their 70s or 80s. That is exactly the benefit of the changes that we will discuss later. I hope that was a useful discussion of the important points that hon. Members have raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Consequences of an intermediate rating
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 30 to 34.
Clause 16 stand part.
Torsten Bell
Clause 15 details the actions that may be required when an arrangement falls into an intermediate rating. That could be an arrangement that is at risk of not delivering value, or one that provides a certain level of value, but needs more work to improve the value it offers. It allows for regulations to detail the actions required of trustees and managers for schemes or arrangements rated intermediate. That could include producing an improvement or action plan, outlining their planned steps towards improved value for members or informing the employers currently paying into the arrangement of its value for money rating and ensuring that the arrangement does not take on new employers until it improves the value rating. That last point was raised at the evidence session on Tuesday.
As clause 14 provides the ability to set a number of sub-categories of rating within the intermediate category, clause 15 enables different consequences to be attached to those sub-categories depending on the value being provided. We are proposing to give schemes in the intermediate rating a period of up to two value for money assessment cycles to make the improvement needed to provide value to their savers.
It is important to differentiate between the intermediate and the “not delivering” rating. Schemes rated as not delivering are essentially not providing value to savers, with no identifiable improvements within a reasonable amount of time. Those schemes will be required to make an assessment of their next steps, which will most likely be to transfer the savers to a scheme that is providing value. That is the ultimate sanction within this framework.
Schemes that are rated intermediate will have identified where improvements can be made and will be required to complete an improvement plan. This would outline the proposed changes to improve their VFM rating within two years. As well as providing definitions of employer and participating employer in the context of the clause, it also allows for the content of an improvement plan to be included in secondary legislation.
Kirsty Blackman
When questioned on Tuesday, the Minister talked about the issues that had been raised about intermediate ratings, and the possibility of intermediate points within intermediate ratings. It would be helpful if he could confirm from the Front Bench that he will take action to ensure that the negative consequences that were raised, with people being so keen to avoid falling out of that, do not happen. The Minister will be aware that confirmation from the Front Bench is helpful in clarifying the intent of the legislation and would put some of our minds at rest.
Torsten Bell
Let me directly address that point, and then I will turn to the Government amendments. The answer is yes. I did not respond, but I should have, to the related point raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest in the previous grouping. The experience in Australia was that there was a binary cut-off, but with a very high-stakes outcome if people fell on the wrong side of it. That did lead to herding behaviour. That is one of the most well-established lessons from the Australian experience, and it is certainly central to the evidence that we have heard in the consultations. I can absolutely provide the confirmation that we will be avoiding that outcome, not least via these multiple levels of intermediate ratings.
Government amendments 30 to 34 introduce other changes. These amendments are of a minor and technical nature and clarify the policy intent. Amendments 30, 31 and 33 make drafting corrections. Amendment 32 clarifies that the Pensions Regulator’s assessment of a transfer solution is to be based on the trustees or managers’ assessment carried out for the purposes of the action plan. Finally, amendment 34 removes a power that we no longer need.
Clause 16 details the actions that must be undertaken when schemes or arrangements are rated as not delivering value for money. This is necessary to help protect pension savers from lingering in arrangements that are “not value” and allow them to be moved into arrangements that do provide value. These actions may include submitting an action plan to regulators, informing employers currently contributing to the arrangement of its “not value” rating and closing the arrangement entirely to new employers.
Clause 16 also enables regulations to set out further actions that will be required of trustees or managers, including the conditions under which a “not value” arrangement may not have to be closed to new members. The clause also allows the Pensions Regulator to require trustees or managers to initiate the transfer of members from the “not value” arrangement into another that does offer value. It outlines the conditions when this would apply.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Consequences of a “not delivering” rating
Amendments made: 30, in clause 16, page 16, line 20, leave out
“the responsible trustees or managers to transfer”.
This amendment corrects an error.
Amendment 31: in clause 16, page 16, line 21, leave out “(all or” and insert “all (or”.
This amendment corrects an error.
Amendment 32: in clause 16, page 16, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—
“(i) based on the assessment carried out by the responsible trustees or managers under section 14(6)(a) in the action plan of the scheme or arrangement, transferring the benefits of all (or a subset of) the members of the scheme or arrangement to another pension scheme (or arrangement under a pension scheme) could reasonably be expected to result in the generality of the members of the scheme or arrangement receiving improved long-term value for money, and”
This amendment clarifies that the Pensions Regulator’s assessment of a transfer solution is to be based on the trustees or managers’ assessment carried out for the purposes of the action plan.
Amendment 33: in clause 16, page 16, line 34, leave out “the measures” and insert “any other measures”.
This amendment makes a minor clarification.
Amendment 34: in clause 16, page 17, line 8, leave out subsection (5).—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment removes a power which is no longer needed.
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Compliance and oversight
Question proposed, that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
To ensure consistency, comparability and transparency of the value that arrangements provide, it is essential that all arrangements undertake the same process in the same way and that there is sufficient oversight of the process by the regulator. That is why clause 17 sets out the range of ways in which the regulator may make provision for ensuring compliance with the value for money framework.
The Pensions Regulator will be able to issue compliance and penalty notices to trustees, managers and third parties in breach of their VFM obligations. These notices enable the regulator to set out the steps that must be taken to ensure compliance with the VFM requirements. Financial penalties can be imposed, to a maximum of £10,000 in the case of an individual and up to £100,000 in other cases. Those figures align with other powers we have taken in part 2. There is also provision for the withdrawal of a penalty notice and for the Pensions Regulator to challenge an incorrect VFM rating.
Clause 18 makes it clear that the provisions in this chapter apply equally to pension schemes run by or on behalf of the Crown and to Crown employees. This is the standard approach in legislation to ensure that Crown-operated schemes are covered by the same rules, unless explicitly excluded. Clause 19 is the interpretation clause, which sets out the meaning of the terms used in the VFM clauses 10 to 17. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Interpretation of Chapter
Amendment made: 35, in clause 19, page 20, leave out lines 13 and 14.—(Torsten Bell.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 28.
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Small pots regulations
John Milne
I beg to move amendment 262, in clause 20, page 21, line 12, leave out “£1,000” and insert “£2,000”.
This amendment changes the value of small pot consolidation from £1,000 to £2,000.
The purpose of this amendment is to accelerate the consolidation of small, dormant pension pots and to enable more pots to be included. In other words, the amendment would support the Government’s intention to simplify retirement savings by reducing the number of scattered small pots and helping members to keep track of their savings and to avoid losing their pensions altogether. It would serve to improve the efficiency of providers, which in turn could reduce costs for savers.
Mark Garnier
Broadly, we welcome clause 20, which builds on important work that was started under the previous Government to address the issue of small, dormant pension pots. This is a critical step forward to consolidate small pots, which can otherwise be costly and inefficient both for pension schemes and, importantly, for their members. However, we have some concerns about certain aspects of the measure that require further scrutiny.
Notably, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to change the monetary value that defines a small pot at a later date. Although that is a logical measure that will probably need to be exercised as the small pots regime becomes more established, there is a risk that drastic changes to the minimum pot size could significantly alter the defined-contribution market in unintended ways. In particular, the potential market impact on schemes serving members with lower average account balances needs to be carefully considered. Automatically consolidating larger pots could reshape the market landscape, affecting members and schemes differently across the spectrum. Pensions UK has suggested that any future increases in the monetary value of the definition of a small pot should be subject to robust consultation with industry stakeholders, alongside an independent market impact assessment, to understand fully the ramifications of such changes.
The Liberal Democrat point is extremely important. I hope that the Minister will verify how the small pot size was set at £1,000. The amendment seeks to increase that to £2,000, but why not £5,000 or lower it to £500? It is very difficult.
The other problem with the clause is that a small pot defined as inactive could be inactively invested—for example, sitting in an index fund for 10 years without anybody worrying about it—and have crept up or down in value. It could be £1,005 one day and £995 the next. Does that change it from being an okay pot to a small pot, and therefore due for consolidation? This is a very difficult measure. Inevitably, it comes to the point of where it is defined. Similarly, will the amount be indexed against inflation, or against the stock market indices? How will the Secretary of State decide to increase it?
There are so many questions about this. My gut feeling is that £1,000 is too small, but equally that it is incredibly difficult to determine what the right size is. I look forward to the Minister extensively discussing with the Committee exactly how he came to £1,000 and not £1,001, £999 or indeed any other number.
Kirsty Blackman
There is possibly cross-party consensus that there is no perfect answer to this problem, but there are lots of wrong answers. If the value had been set at £100,000 or at £1, those would have been very wrong answers. I applaud the way the Liberal Democrats have approached this, by looking at the responses they have received and being willing to flex on the basis of them. I hope the Minister has approached the numbers in the same way.
This amendment is a test of change. It is asking, “Does this work? Does this make a difference?” Whatever value the Government chooses to set the limit at, we will see if it works. At that stage, the Government can assess whether it was the right level or not. This comes back to the point that I made during the evidence sessions about monitoring and evaluation of whether this has worked and how the Government will measure whether it has worked as intended. At what stage will the Government look at that?
At what stage after implementation will the Government make a call about whether the measure has achieved their aims, or whether the number needs to be flexed to meet the aims not just of the Government, but of savers, active and inactive, in their pensions, who would quite like to get a decent return when they hit pension age but perhaps do not have the capacity, the ability, or the time to be involved in actually making the decisions about moving and consolidating the pots.
It would be helpful if the Minister gave us some clarity about what monitoring and evaluation will look like, and about why £1,000 was chosen, so that we can understand the rationale. As I said, there is probably wide agreement that there are quite a few wrong answers but no perfect answer, and this is possibly the best that we are going to get at this moment.
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady is not only telling me I am going to be fired, but then clearly angling for the job by again giving the speech I was going to give. I agree that there is broad consensus across the room that there is no perfect answer, but there is a balance of risks. We are attempting to introduce a large change to the pension system that will affect millions of people, and we need to do that in a steady and gradual way—yes, with the intention of considering going further in the future, but not in a rushed way.
Let me talk through a few of the issues and points that were raised. As I am sure those proposing the amendment know, our view is that we should stick with the £1,000 limit at this point and then come back to consider future increases once the system has been put in place. We want all hon. Members to have it in their heads that the implementation of this aspect of the Bill is on a slightly slower timeline than some of the other bits we have discussed—for example, because we need the value for money regime to be in place before we move to the small pots part of the picture.
Directly on the question of where the £1,000 limit came from, it came from extensive engagement and formal consultation with industry stakeholders over quite a large number of years. There is no academic answer to why it is £1,000 and not £900 or £1,100, but it does strike a balance between the pressures on a competitive industry and the level of administrative hassle, and the number of people who will be affected. We need to build a system that can manage the flows.
To give Members some idea of quantity, the evidence gathered from pension schemes last year showed that the £1,000 threshold would bring approximately 13 million pots into scope. I appreciate the logic behind calling for a higher threshold, but this one would mean a significant 13 million pots. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest is looking aghast at that number. I am just providing it as a bit of context. For further context, it already represents more than half of all deferred small pots, so it is not that we are trying to affect hardly any to start with; it is a significant number. That is in 2024 terms; the picture will look different in 2030 or so when the measure comes in, but that helps Members to have a sense of it.
On how to change the threshold, I can absolutely provide the reassurance that was asked for: that will be done in a public-facing way. An affirmative resolution is always required to change it. Unlike some other aspects of the Bill, where the first regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure but later changes can be made through the negative procedure, any change to the pot size requirement will always require the affirmative procedure, for exactly the reasons that have been discussed, which are that this would be a material change that affected the industry and individuals as they go through. Certainly, we would consult on that in the future.
For those reasons, I am glad that this is a probing amendment. I hope I have been probed, and we would like the clause to stand part.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, perhaps I am reading the clause completely wrongly, but it says:
“Small pots regulations…are subject to the affirmative procedure if they…are the first such regulations…otherwise, are subject to the negative procedure.”
I am confused.
Torsten Bell
That is for all regulations except for the setting of the threshold number.
John Milne
Yes, it sounds rather unpleasant. We will think more about this subject, and I am sure we will discuss further, but I thank him for the clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mark Garnier
I beg to move amendment 259, clause 20, page 21, line 23, leave out from “procedure” to end of line 29
This amendment would make all regulations on consolidation of small dormant pots in DC schemes to the affirmative procedure all times they were made rather than just after first use.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked an interesting question about the application of the affirmative procedure to regulations on the pot size. Our amendment seeks to address the use of the affirmative procedure in the wider legislation that goes with this.
As we continue to table amendments urging extra parliamentary scrutiny, I feel myself becoming slightly depressed at the prospect of having to see too much of the Minister, even though he is undoubtedly a lovely chap, in Delegated Legislation Committees as we consider every single change. It is important though, because at the end of the day Parliament needs to scrutinise what is going on, so it is a good thing that the size of the pot is subject to the affirmative procedure.
It is okay, but not ideal that for anything that could be to do with the wider legislation, the negative procedure applies. Members having to look for a very material change going through in a written ministerial statement or whatever and then raise it is not necessarily such a good thing, given that this is fixing 13 million of these pots. That is an awful lot of them. If we increased the threshold to £2,000, would that number be 26 million? A lot of people that could be affected by this.
This was largely a probing amendment to see what the Minister has to say. We are unlikely to divide the Committee on it. None the less, I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the affirmative procedure.
Torsten Bell
I understand why the hon. Member tabled the amendment. I think amendments like this one should be tabled in most Bill Committees by all Oppositions, as they have been over the years.
Let me make one general point and one specific point about the Bill. The general point is that there is always a trade-off between maximum scrutiny of every single part of any change that comes through secondary legislation and the risk of putting undue pressure on parliamentary time for what will be quite minor changes. In the case of the Bill, the pot size requirement is crucial. Lots of what the rest of the regulations deal with will, in fact, be very practical and detailed.
I am not sure that the Committee’s concern that we will be spending our lives together would be allayed by having our time clogged up by all of that detail coming through whenever anything is amended, but I understand the good, democratic reasons why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment. I hope that he accepts that as reassurance.
Mark Garnier
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
The clause, as we have just discussed, will ensure that the Government have the power to introduce regulations to secure the consolidation of eligible small pots into an authorised consolidator scheme. The Bill enables us to address the growing problem of pension fragmentation, where individuals accumulate multiple small pension pots as they move between jobs. Fragmentation can lead to inefficiencies, higher costs for providers and savers, and poor retirement outcomes.
As we have just discussed, the clause creates the eligibility conditions for small pots to be consolidated, including the £1,000 limit. The pot must be classed as dormant, which means that contributions have not been paid into it for at least 12 months, so the individual is not actively saving into the scheme. In addition, there is a requirement that the individual has not, subject to any prescribed exceptions, actively expressed how the pension pot is to be invested. The prescribed exceptions are in part to ensure that the scope specifically targets those who are unengaged savers in default funds, but this will enable us to broaden the scope to include individuals such as those in sharia-compliant funds, who would otherwise be excluded from the automatic consolidation process.
We estimate that these eligibility criteria will bring into scope 13 million dormant pots. This multiple default consolidator approach will support improved retirement outcomes for savers, not least by lowering the charges that they pay on those pots over time, as well as reduce the administrative hassle for pension providers, alongside supporting our vision for a pensions market with fewer, larger schemes that provide greater value. Our impact assessment demonstrates that this solution is estimated to generate greater overall net benefits over the period than other options, including pot follows member.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a question on the definition of “dormant”. The clause states that a pension pot is “dormant” if no contributions have been made for 12 months and if
“the individual has, subject to any prescribed exceptions, taken no step to confirm or alter the way in which the pension pot is invested.”
I am concerned that that definition is too wide.
If somebody has just said, “How much is in my pot?” and is confirming what is invested in it, are they considered to be somebody who is actively involved in their pot and who may not want consolidation? There is obviously a requirement to tell people anyway that it is going to be consolidated. What if they were actively involved, but only to the level that they checked the numbers?
For example, I have a small pension pot. I have tried to amalgamate it with another one, but it did not work because I have changed my name. I would love for it to be amalgamated; I cannot work out how to do it, but I have engaged with that pension pot in recent times and therefore it may not be considered a dormant pot.
Can the Minister give us some clarity or promise future clarity about what “dormant” means? If there has been a rough engagement with it, is that dormant? If people are very keen on their pension pot and have spent a lot of time saying, “Actually, it should be invested like this,” that is definitely not dormant, no matter how small it is. A lot of people will have had only a passing interest and would be delighted for it to be consolidated.
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady’s last point is basically the right one. The policy objective is that where someone is not actively engaging in their pot, that is available for consolidation. The kind of minor administrative engagement—trying to access the website—is not what is envisaged by the clause. It is to make sure that somebody who has taken active choices about how their pot is invested is not treated as being disengaged when they have done something that is, it turns out, very unusual.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Small pots data platform
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Torsten Bell
I beg the Committee’s patience, as a number of clauses are grouped here—Members can thank the powers that be for that—and I will run through them all.
Clause 21 enables the Government to introduce a small pots data platform. This platform will be responsible for determining where each small dormant pot should be consolidated. It will ensure that decisions about where pots should go are made consistently, transparently and with the members’ best interests in mind.
International evidence from other countries, such as Australia, with similar pension systems to the UK has shown that a central platform improves consolidation outcomes, rather than just putting duties on schemes to sort it out. This clause establishes the framework to allow for the necessary infrastructure to be built to support data matching and pot consolidation. The Government believe that the infrastructure will be required to support pension schemes to deal with the volume of small pots that left the hon. Member for Wyre Forest aghast five seconds ago, effectively and efficiently.
As Members may know, we recently worked with Pensions UK, who have undertaken a feasibility review to examine and assess the technical requirements of the small pots data platform. The Government will consider that work as part of our next stages in developing the necessary infrastructure and the underpinning legislation. However, before committing to how best to deliver this infrastructure, we must undertake that full and proper assessment of capabilities.
Clause 22 enables the Government to ensure that members are properly informed about any action that is taken to consolidate their small dormant pension pot. Transfer notices will be the key point of communication between the scheme and the member. We have not had the time to make this point yet, but obviously it will be up to members to opt out of consolidation should they so wish.
Rebecca Smith
How will members know that they have that opt-out? Will that be clear enough, given all the comments we have been making on financial education? People have got to be pretty engaged, and we know from the history that they are not always that engaged in their future.
Torsten Bell
That is an important question. The communication to members will be standardised, by providing the key information that has to be provided and the option of an opt-out—so it will be explicit that they have the option to opt out of the consolidation process—as well as their alternative options, for example moving their fund into another consolidator. I hope that that answers the question.
The notice is of high importance, because receiving that key information is basically the only point at which the member is informed about what is happening to the financial transaction—the Government are not generally in the business of legislating to change people’s financial arrangements without their consent. Clause 22 will ensure that schemes are bound by regulations to send prescribed information that will enable a member to make the decisions, for exactly the reasons that the hon. Lady set out.
Clause 23 will introduce an important safeguard in the broader framework for consolidating small dormant pension pots. It recognises that although automatic consolidation will benefit the majority, it may not be right for everyone and in all circumstances. The Bill aims to streamline pension savings and reduce fragmentation across the industry, but the clause ensures that members’ interests remain at the heart of the process.
Under the clause, a small dormant pension pot may be designated as exempt from automatic transfer if two key conditions are met. First, the pot must satisfy certain prescribed conditions, which will be set out in regulations. Secondly, the trustees or managers of the scheme must determine that it is in the best interests of the individual or a class of individuals in their scheme for the pot to remain where it is.
That is a vital member protection and safeguard. It recognises that although consolidation is generally beneficial, because it reduces administrative costs, there will be circumstances in which transferring a pot may not be in the member’s best interest. The clause provides the ability for the scheme to make that clear and not to transfer in those circumstances.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the Minister have any hypothetical examples? I am not asking him to commit to anything being a prescribed condition, but just to give us some examples so that we have an idea.
Torsten Bell
That is a fair question. The most prevalent example will be people whose existing pot, although small, has unusual and valuable guarantees attached to it, or benefits that they would lose if they transferred into the default fund of another provider. That is likely to be the most common use of the clause. The clause will provide for transparency by allowing regulations to be made to set out in more detail how those decisions and others will take place.
Given the admin costs and unprofitability of small dormant pots, we do not expect schemes to abuse this exemption. For the benefit of people who do not spend lots of time looking at these matters, I should say that lots of schemes are happy to see small pots go, because they are expensive for them to operate; they are neither in the provider’s interest nor in the saver’s. This clause strikes a careful balance.
Clause 24 will ensure that pension savings are not left idle, requiring all eligible pots to be held by a default consolidator. As Members will know, millions of workers accumulate small pension pots as they move between jobs. Specifically, the clause will allow for the transfer of those dormant pots without requiring active consent—again, that is something that Governments do not do lightly, but it is required by the best interests of savers in these cases—where a transfer notice has been issued and no objection received from the member, as I set out in relation to clause 22.
If a member does not opt out, the trustees and managers of the scheme are required to act on the transfer notice and transfer the pot to the designated consolidator. Clause 24 also provides legal certainty, because it will empower schemes to consolidate pots even if doing so breaches existing scheme rules. That removes administrative barriers and places the member’s interest at the heart of the system.
Clause 25 plays a role in providing legal clarity and continuity for individuals whose small dormant pots are transferred. The clause sets out what happens when a pension pot is moved to a different pension scheme or a different arrangement within the current scheme. This ensures that an individual’s membership status, rights and obligations are automatically and seamlessly updated at the point of transfer—so it is not just that a member’s pot has been transferred, but that they have become a member of the scheme that they are entering, even though they have not signed up to a contract explicitly in so doing. This means that they automatically acquire all the rights and responsibilities that come with that membership. In schemes where membership results in a new contractual relationship, the clause will deem that a new contract is formed at the point of transfer.
Clause 26 will play a critical role in ensuring that the transfer of small pots to consolidating schemes is undertaken in a legally robust and administratively efficient manner. By establishing clear timeframes for transfers, it will allow for the safe and effective consolidation of small dormant pension pots.
This clause introduces two key timing rules. First, it mandates the minimum 30-day notice period before any transfer or change of arrangement can take place. That gives individuals the opportunity to review the proposal and respond. That time period is aligned to the approach taken for members who wish to opt out of automatic enrolment.
Secondly, the clause sets out a maximum one-year deadline for completion of the transfer or change of arrangement. It provides clarity and operational certainty for pension schemes and savers. That also enables schemes to maximise the use of bulk transfers, supporting a lower-cost and more efficient transfer process, rather than having shorter deadlines that force them to move individuals in small batches. It also ensures that the small pots consolidation framework remains responsive and co-ordinated. If trustees and scheme managers are waiting for proposals from the small pots data platform, the transfer period can be extended. This clause strikes the right balance by protecting savers and making sure they have time to act, while also providing an impetus for timely action in the consolidation process.
I am grateful to members of the Committee for listening to all those points, and I commend clauses 21 to 26.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a couple of questions on the small pots data platform. On Second Reading, I raised issues about the pensions dashboard and the fact that after a significant length of time, it has not yet appeared. I appreciate that lots of people have been doing lots of work on it, but we do not have it yet.
It is vital that the small pots data platform exists and works in order for small pots consolidation to happen. Can the Minister give us some comfort that it will materialise and work? If there is a possibility of any errors in the system or the data is not correct—if the platform is not absolutely spot on—there is the risk of significant problems being created. Is he convinced that enough investment will be made in the data platform for it to work, and that it will be incredibly safe, given that it will potentially have—like the pensions dashboard—significant amounts of data relating to individuals and money? It therefore needs to be as safe from cyber-attack as possible, if it is presumably in the cloud or another such system. I would appreciate any reassurance about that, and lastly, that it will have the required resources to work and that the Government will push to create the resources if they are not there and the timeline is beginning to lag.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for those questions. She is right to mention the dashboard, and I will say two things about that. First, although these are different systems, there are lots of learnings from the process—as we heard from Chris Curry on Tuesday—not least the impetus that it has provided to schemes to make sure they have put all their record keeping in order. For them to be able to engage with the dashboard, they now have a legal requirement to have that data in a standard format. It is also about how the central system works, but it will be a different system, so the hon. Member is right to raise those questions.
I do not want to offer her total certainty because that is not available to me for a scheme that is looking to be operational in the next decade. We have intentionally left that longer timeline for exactly the reasons that the hon. Member has outlined. I can reassure her that very extensive engagement has been going on with industry about this. I mentioned the feasibility study, but there has also been heavy engagement, including on the security element that she mentioned. That is absolutely key, and lessons definitely have gone through from the dashboard approach to make sure that we are happy with how that will take place. I hope that provides her with some—if not perfect—reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Gerald Jones.)
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
Proxy Voting: Review of 2024-25 Arrangements
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
Procedure Committee
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
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Graeme Downie will speak on the publication of the second report of the Procedure Committee, “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”, HC 489, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions can be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and I will call Graeme Downie to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee, following the publication of our second report of this Session, entitled “Proxy voting: Review of arrangements introduced in Session 2024-25”.
Before turning to our inquiry and report, I would first like to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee from across the House for their dedicated work on this timely report, as well as to Gavin and his team of Clerks, who guided us through this process, and to all who gave and submitted evidence. I put on record my thanks to everyone who took part in the inquiry.
It is our view that this report comes at an important moment. With more than 300 new Members of Parliament elected in July 2024, many colleagues may be unfamiliar with the origins and evolution of proxy voting in the House. Our aim in conducting this review and publishing our report was, first and foremost, to assess the arrangements introduced in this Session, but in doing so we have sought to clarify the principles and underpinning of the scheme, assess its current operation and make recommendations for its future development.
As many Members are aware, proxy voting was first introduced in 2019 in response to greater calls for support for Members during parental absence. That landmark change was made in recognition of the reality that Members, like those we represent, face personal circumstances that may temporarily prevent them from attending their place of work. Since then, the scheme has expanded to cover long-term illness, serious injury and, more recently, additional provisions that have been brought forward relating to complications during pregnancy and fertility treatment.
These developments reflect a growing recognition that Members should not be forced to choose between their personal health and family responsibilities, and the performance of their solemn constitutional duties in this place. The Committee, like our predecessors before it, firmly believes that the arrangements in this space must continue to evolve to reflect the lived experience of Members of Parliament.
I turn to our inquiry. Late last year, the Leader of the House asked us to review the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury that were introduced at the start of this Parliament and are due to expire at the end of this Session. As part of our inquiry, we also considered the permanent provisions introduced in November 2024 for complications related to pregnancy and childbirth, and for fertility treatment. Because of the early point in the Parliament at which we conducted the inquiry, we received only limited evidence. Uptake of proxy votes remains relatively low, and that has limited the evidence base available to the Committee in our inquiry. However, the feedback that we received was constructive and thoughtful, and it has informed our recommendations.
We conducted a thorough assessment of the arrangements introduced in the present Session of Parliament. First, the Committee puts on the record its strong support for the continued evolution of proxy voting for pregnancy, childbirth and fertility-related absences. From the beginning, the arrangements in this space have rightly grown organically in response to evolving circumstances. This growth has, in our view, worked well, and continues to do so. We accordingly recommend that the arrangements introduced in November 2024 remain in place permanently. In our view, they are clearly defined and provide vital support to Members at a time when flexible support is most in need.
Secondly, on the question of long-term serious illness and injury, we sound a slightly more cautious note. Although the temporary arrangements have provided valuable support to Members across the House, we nevertheless heard concerns about the consistency, transparency and integrity of the scheme. We have also heard concerns that the scheme is not constructed broadly enough—I will touch on that later in my statement. On both points, however, we feel that there is at present insufficient evidence on which to base concrete recommendations for detailed changes to the scope or operation of the scheme. We have therefore taken the view that these issues must be taken in the round before any firm decision is made to put the provisions on a permanent footing.
We therefore recommend that the temporary arrangements for serious long-term illness and injury, which were introduced at the start of this Session, be extended to the end of this Parliament. That would provide continuity of support to Members, while providing sufficient evidence base for further work to be undertaken by this Committee.
In the conduct of this inquiry, the Committee also gave thought to the future of proxy voting. Our Report sets out what we consider to be the three guiding principles that underlie the scheme at present, which we believe should guide any future developments.
First, physical absence from the Parliamentary Estate must remain a core requirement. Proxy voting is intended for Members who are genuinely unable to be present. Although we recognise that exceptions may apply in cases of medical recovery or maternity leave, the principle must be upheld. We must avoid a situation where Members vote by proxy while actively participating in other business on the Estate.
Second, the integrity of the scheme is paramount. Proxy voting is a privilege that should be exercised cautiously. Members must exercise it cautiously and avoid any all conduct that could undermine public confidence in the system, thus upholding the highest levels of propriety.
Third, supplementary mechanisms that can achieve similar aims to proxy voting, such as pairing, slipping and nodding through, remain important. These informal arrangements have long supported Members who face short term or less severe absences, and they should continue to operate alongside proxy voting, offering flexibility and fairness to all Members.
Our Report also acknowledges that the current scheme does not cover every circumstance in which Members cannot be present on the Estate to vote in Divisions that they may find themselves in, and it notes the strength of feeling and frustration from some quarters on this matter. We also noted the increased focus on accessibility, health and wellbeing, which is rightly finding expression in this Parliament. We are following with interest the inquiries conducted by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee in this space.
We hope that this Report, far from being the final word on proxy voting, starts the conversation anew—in a new Parliament with a new cohort of Members—about what proxy voting seeks to do for them and how the scheme can best be adapted to achieve that. To that end, our Report proposed that we conduct a further review of proxy voting later in the Parliament. That would allow us to gather more evidence, particularly as more and more Members use the scheme as the Parliament progresses, and to consider the findings of the inquiries being undertaken by the Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee.
The Procedure Committee is committed to ensuring that the procedures of the House of Commons remain responsive to the needs of its Members. Proxy voting is a vital part of that commitment, and we hope that our Report will assist the House in maintaining a fair and effective method for all Members to exercise their constitutional functions and vote in Divisions in the House. I therefore commend this Report to the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair and the Committee for their hard work in releasing this. I have a simple question. Some of us sitting here today could, in three months’ time, find ourselves seriously ill suddenly and unexpectedly. I presume that would need to be backed up by a letter from a consultant, a doctor or some medical person to ensure that the illness is serious enough that they cannot go and vote.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I remind the hon. Member that these are brief questions.
Graeme Downie
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I have now been intervened on by the hon. Member for Strangford and asked a question; I wonder exactly what the third part of the trio to complete the hat-trick might be. We considered matters such as that, and we received some evidence. However, as I stated, we did not find enough concrete recommendations to come up with a full report as to how the scheme might be further improved. The example he expresses is the kind of thing that proxy voting is designed for already. We did have some evidence as to how the system is currently, as I said in the statement, not exactly open to everyone, and sometimes not entirely clear. However, the circumstances that he describes represent some of the times that proxy voting could be used.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech and the members of the Procedure Committee, which I am part of, for their hard work. In particular, I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), on her excellent stewardship.
I have a question for my hon. Friend. One thing the report looked at was proxy voting when Members are present on the Estate. Could he expand on that? Also, will the scheme be reviewed, and are there any plans for it to be expanded?
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent work he does with us on the Committee. His contributions are always valuable and should be listened to carefully. Yes, we considered both those matters. As I outlined in my speech, we appreciate that maintaining the principle that we should use proxy voting only when away from the estate does not cover everyone’s circumstances. Certainly, in the limited evidence we had from the inquiry, we pointed to the need to keep this under review throughout this Parliament before making any arrangements permanent. I would hope the Committee would look through that during the Parliament.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, and I am grateful to all Committee members. He will not be surprised to see me here in a statement on this issue. Colleagues will know that my father-in-law died on 20 June, which is the day we had the vote on assisted dying. I was unable to seek a proxy, a pair or, frankly, any real meaningful support from those who ought to have helped. With that in mind, and with the interest of making sure that others are not forced to choose between their responsibilities in this place and to their families, I urge my hon. Friend and the Committee to go further and give real consideration to making sure that proxies are available to Members with families who are in receipt of end-of-life care—who are on their death bed —so we are not forced to choose between being with our families or being here to do our jobs.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I know that was a very difficult day for him. We spoke briefly on that day, and I know how hard it was. I think everyone on all sides of that debate had a great deal of sympathy for what had happened. My belief is that that kind of thing should never have to happen again. As I said, there is more work to be done on proxy voting and making sure it is fully fit and covers more circumstances; it is just that within the scope of the inquiry we led, we were not able to consider and make concrete recommendations on those points. When the Committee returns to the topic later in the Parliament, I am sure my hon. Friend will be a key voice in bringing such evidence to the Committee to make sure it is considered fully.
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
(1 day, 5 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
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Lewell. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I thank hon. Members who supported my application.
The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has, since 2015, been a lifeline for families who are raising children who have endured immense hardship and trauma. I welcome the announcement this morning—nicely timed for this debate—that the fund will continue into the next financial year, giving families and providers a little more of a chance to plan and deliver therapy. It is also good news that the Department plans to engage with providers and families during the reform process. That shows that the campaigning of colleagues, families and providers—including those in the Public Gallery for this debate—makes a difference, and shows that we cannot stop now.
But while the extension is welcome, it does not properly address any of the fundamental issues that exist as a result of the cuts announced in April, such as the significant decrease in per child funding, or the lack of a long-term settlement for the fund. The fund was designed to provide children with the therapeutic support that they need to recover from trauma, neglect and abuse. It has enabled outstanding providers, such as Beacon House and Jigsaw in my constituency of Mid Sussex, to deliver life-changing therapy to vulnerable children. The fund also provides vital support to parents such as Rachel, who is here today and who speaks so powerfully about the importance of the fund and the irreversible damage its withdrawal does.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this specific issue, on behalf of us all. Providers such as Beacon House, which also serves my constituency, have been clear that proper assessments are essential; they are not optional extras. Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting funding for those specialist assessments means that therapy risks starting without the foundations needed for long-term healing, which is both clinically unsafe and deeply unfair to the families involved?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. She is absolutely right. I will address her point in due course.
When I saw Rachel this morning and told her about the one-year renewal of the fund, she told me that she had come out in goosebumps as a result. That is how much this fund matters to adoptive families. I have seen for myself the difference that the fund makes. One parent told me that her gratitude for the ASGSF was immeasurable, and that she would never have been able to be an adoptive parent today without it. She spoke about two professionals whose
“deep understanding, profound compassion and reflective empathy”
had supported her and her children through multiple crises and out the other side. Such stories are not rare. Every year, Adoption UK’s adoption barometer shows consistent results: 85% of families who access the fund say that it makes a positive impact; 94% say that they would use it again. So, yes, it was a relief in April when my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) secured a commitment from the Minister that the fund would continue, but that relief came only after weeks of absolutely unnecessary anxiety. Families were left in limbo, and providers unsure if they could keep going. Even now, huge problems and unanswered questions remain. The profound concern that I am hearing from families, therapists and charities working with adoptive and kinship families is about whether the Government are going to learn from the shambles of the spring and not repeat those mistakes.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. In my constituency of Surrey Heath, my constituent Matt and his husband adopted their son in 2023. He is a child who had already endured appalling trauma in the past. This fund has enabled Matt and his son to seek the therapy they needed from the Cherrycroft practice in the village of Bagshot. Does she agree that—despite the one-year reprieve—without long-term sustainable funding and guarantees, sustainable therapies will not be available in the long term, and that we will also risk putting people off the act of adoption all together?
Alison Bennett
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an excellent point. A lack of long-term funding will put people off adopting children or taking children into kinship care. It also risks putting providers off providing support.
Ministers have insisted that the fund has not been cut, but that is because the overall pot has remained unchanged. For children and families, however, the reality is very different. Individual allowances have been reduced. The per-child therapy limit has been slashed from £5,000 to £3,000, which is a 40% cut, and the separate £2,500 allowance for assessments has gone. Match funding for complex cases has ended.
Families now face impossible choices; they can have therapy or assessment, but not both. One provider put it bluntly, saying:
“It’s like asking a garage to fix a car without first checking what the problem is.”
This situation is a waste of time and money, and the consequences are already being felt. Children have had their therapy stopped abruptly while applications were resubmitted. Families have endured months-long gaps without support. Parents describe sharp declines in mental health, rising violence in the home, and children losing trust in professionals. One provider told me of a young child who was heartbroken to learn that their therapy was ending. They asked:
“If I save up my pocket money, can I keep seeing you?”
That question should haunt us all; it certainly haunts me. It shows just how fragile trust is for children whose lives have already been shattered by trauma, and whose early years have been defined not by making the secure attachments that are so important for getting the right start in life. Relationships are everything; to pull away support is profoundly damaging.
The data backs that up. This year’s adoption barometer found that 42% of families reached crisis point in 2024; 77% said that it feels like a continual struggle to get the help their child needs; and 65% experience violent or aggressive behaviour from their child. I know that there are parents behind me in the Public Gallery who have experienced violence from their children this very week. And in Kinship’s 2024 survey, more than one in eight kinship carers expressed the fear that they might not be able to continue caring for their children.
Meanwhile, the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy has warned that these 40% cuts per child will have a
“negative and long-lasting impact.”
That seems to be putting it mildly. Families, providers, experts and children themselves all say the same thing—these cuts are devastating. It is not just the children and their families who will pay the price; the Treasury will, too. There will be placement breakdowns, more children in care, more exclusions, more antisocial behaviour and more long-term damage. All these things cost the state money. The cost of withdrawing support is far higher than the cost of sustaining it.
On top of the cuts there is the uncertainty, even with the extension announced today. Providers cannot plan and families are turned away. Experienced therapists have warned me that that will
“replicate the cycle of deprivation and abuse”
that these children have already suffered. What message do we send if we withdraw the one source of essential therapeutic support that children and families rely on?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for the passion with which she speaks about this subject.
I wanted to raise the case of my constituent, Jean, an adoptive mother who cared for a son who has foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and developmental trauma. I wanted to raise her case because, very sadly, Jean has died. Before she died, she had managed to arrange long-term support for her son. She obviously does not know it, but her son will lose that support in a year’s time. My question, on behalf of Jean and others in a similar situation, is this: what happens to her son, and to children in a similar situation, now?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes a profound contribution about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. I do not think I have the answers to that question, but I thank him for raising it.
Adoption England has suggested reform to the fund. Devolving it to its regional agencies or local authorities is a possibility, but no consultation has taken place and pilots have not even begun. It would be reckless to make major structural changes before the evidence is in, and it would risk leaving children and families in deeper crisis. That is why we were particularly glad to hear this morning that the Department will engage with families and providers.
Charities such as Adoption UK, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies UK, Coram, Kinship, Barnardo’s and the Family Rights Group are calling for urgent action. They are calling for, first, a permanent ringfenced fund; secondly, a comprehensive review of the April changes; thirdly, a full public consultation on any future reforms—the engagement promised must be meaningful; and fourthly, a two-year moratorium on further changes so that reforms can be evidence-based, not rushed. We should be supporting vulnerable children and encouraging adoptive parents to keep doing what they are doing by providing the necessary support for therapy—not least because in 2021 alone adoptive parents saved the UK economy £4.2 billion.
I will end with four questions for the Minister. First, what concrete reassurance can she give children, families and providers about the long-term future of the fund? April’s announcement came too late and caused avoidable harm, and today’s remains short term. Will the Government commit to doing better this time?
Secondly, can the Minister assure us that the equality impact assessment was considered as part of the development process for the changes made to the fund that were announced in April, as per the requirements of the Equality Act 2010? Will she undertake to share the relevant documents to support that?
Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the decision to cut funding available through the ASGSF aligns with the Department’s wider efforts to increase the uptake among eligible kinship families and grow the use of the kinship care arrangements?
Fourthly, will the Minister acknowledge that cutting the support will cost far more—socially, emotionally and financially to the taxpayer—in the years to come? The adoption and special guardianship support fund is a vital lifeline for vulnerable children and their adoptive families. It is not a luxury. The Government must change course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I was about to remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to speak in the debate, but I see everyone already has. I need to call the Front Benchers at 2.38 pm, so we will need to impose an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes. I call Helen Hayes, Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate.
The introduction of the adoption and special guardianship support fund as part of the Children and Families Act 2014 marked an important recognition of our understanding of the impact of early childhood trauma and the increasing complexity of need of children in the care system. It is a vital acknowledgment of the reality that the impact of early childhood trauma does not always end with the stability of a loving adoptive home.
The fund also provides vital support to children in kinship care with a special guardianship order and to other children who have previously been looked after—for example, where family reunification has taken place. The fund has provided support to 54,000 children who have been able to access diagnosis and therapeutic support, and it is a vital source of support for families who are struggling as a consequence of early childhood trauma. It has been a lifeline.
However, the fund has never been established on a long-term footing, and that has left families in a state of continual anxiety about whether the support they rely on will continue. I know that the Minister is aware of this, but the delay in announcing the continuation of the fund until the day after it had expired, despite many weeks of requests for clarity, caused unnecessary fear and anxiety for many families. I hope that she and her colleagues are reflecting on how cross-Government decision making can be done in a more compassionate and child-centred way in the future.
My Committee recently published a report on children’s social care, for which we heard the concerns of parents and voluntary sector organisations about the decision this financial year to reduce the fair access limit for therapy from £5,000 to £3,000 per child. I understand that the Government have concerns in the sense that some of the services being paid for by the fund should be provided by the NHS. Will the Minister set out her assessment of the level of need, including the level per child, that the fund is seeking to meet? What work is she doing with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve access to mental health services via the NHS for looked-after children and previously looked-after children, including adopted children and those in kinship care?
My Committee recommended that the Government undertake urgent engagement with families on the impact of the reduction in the fair access limit and, if evidence of negative impacts is found, that urgent steps be taken to restore the level of funding per child, so what assessment is the Minister undertaking of the impact of the changes, and what engagement is under way with families?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett).
Imagine for a moment that you are a child. You endured abuse, neglect or violence, or your parents were unwell or fought or could not cope. You were then taken into care and had to leave everything behind. You spent 15 months in the care system, as the average adoptee does, and had to deal with different placements, different places, different spaces, different schools, different teachers, different friends and different routines. Everything familiar and comforting was stripped away. Your identity was eroded and confused. You also had to deal with courts and meetings, and social workers and questions. You had to deal with all that before being placed in a loving forever home.
That is the story of 80% of adoptees. No wonder young people need specialist support. Let me put it this way: on top of the tragedy, trauma, pain and loss, these young people now have to regulate their social, emotional and psychological challenges. More than the average will be neuroatypical, and 30% will have self-harmed. We have to recognise the centrality of getting support to these young people at the right time, to ensure that not only their now but their long-term future is built on stable support.
The instability we saw earlier this year must never be repeated. I personally long for the relevant services to be in the NHS and across public services, but we know that they are not for now. They are really specialist, so we must enable every single child to have a full assessment, for the child and their family, of their complex needs and the therapeutic interventions they need. Those therapies need to be the right therapies—not on the side and on the cheap and what is in the mainstream, but the specific therapies needed to build stability again in these young people’s lives. Family therapy is also required to ensure that we see not family breakdowns—the proportion is now 7% for adoptions—but instead families coming together, with strong bonds for life.
I know that the Minister—and, indeed, you, Ms Lewell —could not be more dedicated on these issues, but we cannot go through this cycle of not knowing how much support an individual could have. It must be uncapped, because there can be no limit on getting this right for a child.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell— I think I have done so three or four times this week already. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for bringing this issue to the House and for the passion she obviously has for this subject. She brought that to us all really well, and we thank her for that.
As Members will be aware, I always give a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates. Northern Ireland offers support through the regional adoption and fostering services and the health and social care trusts, providing an assessment of need and funding for therapy for eligible families. Although the process and funding structure differ from the system we have here—the ASGSF—the issue is exactly the same. Demand far outstrips funding, and the bottom line is that children’s lives and futures are on the line.
It has been well established by numerous studies that cared-for children do better in kinship care, which enables them to be with those they have a connection with, those who will care for them because they have that biological connection and probably a very strong relationship. I am sold on the benefits of kinship care, as others are. Evidence shows that kinship care provides better long-term outcomes and a safe and stable home for children and young people who are likely to have experienced significant early life adversity, such as loss, trauma or neglect.
The impact of the lack of funding is clearly heading towards families who are struggling, and cannot afford to fund another child with additional emotional needs, saying that they cannot provide kinship care. We must do all we can to prevent that outcome in order to get the best outlook for the child, and because of the financial burden that care places on social services. I know that the Minister will look at this very honestly.
Research from the Centre for Care estimates that kinship care is worth some £4.3 billion a year to the Government, which is equivalent to nearly 40% of the entire children’s service budget for England. If that care was no longer available, that is a lot of money—another black hole that the Government will have to try to find the money for. We must not let that happen. To address the rising demand for children requiring alternative forms of care, most commonly foster care, which costs taxpayers millions each year, we need to ensure that kinship carers receive help and support. That is essential to the entire care system, whether in Northern Ireland or England. Funding to allow support and help must match the needs of children whose difficult upbringing or shocking change in circumstances has the potential to derail them for life.
We have a responsibility to ensure that cared for children are exactly that: cared for, protected and supported, with hope for the future.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate.
I have seen the difference that the adoption and support grant has made locally. I visited the Purple Elephant Project, based in Whitton in my constituency, which supports over 100 children and families in Hounslow and Richmond, including many who have been adopted, are in kinship care or are currently looked-after children in foster care. It provides intense professional therapeutic support.
The Purple Elephant team gave examples of the difference it has made, sometimes after a long period of therapeutic support, to benefit those children and families. I saw the safe and welcoming space it provides and understood the difference it makes. The children it has supported have all had a traumatic start to their life through neglect or abuse, and they have great difficulty building relationships and coping with school, siblings and any social situation.
Due to the close correlation between neglect, abuse and adoption, Purple Elephant and other organisations are heavily dependent on the grant for their sustainability. When I met our kinship care group, I heard that many of them, and the children for whom they are now guardians, gain from the services that the fund supports. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) cares deeply about this issue and is personally committed, but I ask her to address the problems.
Purple Elephant told me recently that it is not out of the woods yet. It is still being impacted significantly and having to fundraise to bridge the gap in funding and ensure that therapy sessions do not stop. Let us remember that it is not just the children and families who lose out because of the uncertainty and the cuts resulting from these decisions, but the therapists themselves, who have a living to make. Most of them are freelancers. They want to work with these damaged children and do not want their whole practice to be paid for privately by families who can afford it.
There must be equality here. Purple Elephant has told me that families are anxious, stressed and disillusioned about the loss of support and worried about how they will cope if these services—
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate.
We know that children who experience early trauma face profound challenges that can reverberate throughout their lives. Early years often marked by instability, neglect or harm can leave invisible wounds that can impact emotional development, the ability to form trusting relationships and overall mental wellbeing. However, the challenges are not insurmountable. With targeted therapeutic intervention, children can begin to regain a sense of safety and stability, laying the foundation for healthier, more hopeful futures. Therapy provides them with the essential tools to process their experiences, manage overwhelming emotions and build trust and resilience.
The changes announced in April have meant that many families can no longer pursue the long-term, sustained therapeutic support that is vital for our most damaged children. Two therapists have told me that they have had to stop work with adoptive children because the breaks in support and the lower individual funding allocations have meant that the long-term therapeutic support that they provide is no longer accessible to families. We must not risk losing these valuable skilled professionals from the sector.
James is a 16-year-old adopted young man who ended up leaving his adoptive parents and being placed in residential care after a violent episode. During that time, regular sessions were held with his adoptive parents to help them to understand the placement breakdown and explore how best to support all the family. He now wants to rebuild relationships with his family, but because of the funding cuts, he can access only 16 therapy sessions over the year. Given the complexity of his situation and the need to rebuild attachment relationships, it is just not going to work over 16 sessions. Liaison with child and adolescent mental health services and social care is essential, but funding constraints mean that that cannot happen.
James’s example is not unique: it demonstrates how the inadequate funding model is undermining the very interventions that will allow children to heal, thrive and reintegrate successfully into family life. The Government must provide a long-term commitment to the fund and reconsider cutting the individual support packages. If ever there was a case for investing to save, this is it. Getting it right for some of our most vulnerable children will set them up for a more stable, happy and healthy life. It will support family cohesion, and it will reduce pressure on a host of other Government and third sector services later in life.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this very important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing it. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care and have lived experience of kinship care, so I know how significant this discussion is for families across the country, including in my constituency.
Since coming into office, I am pleased that the Labour Government have been engaging much more in the wider kinship conversation, and I want to acknowledge and welcome the positive steps that the Government have already taken in making it a legal duty for every local authority to have a kinship local offer once the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill receives Royal Assent. That local offer includes information about therapeutic support and is exactly what kinship families have long called for. I am grateful to the Minister for acting swiftly on that.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund provides vital therapeutic support for children who have experienced trauma and loss. Today’s announcement will extend funding for next year, and having that certainty is important, as it gives families some of the clarity and reassurance that they have been seeking. It is right that after supporting 54,000 children already, this much-needed fund is continuing. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to review the scheme and to launch a public engagement process, so that kinship families themselves can help to shape its future. I can say with confidence that the kinship care APPG will be more than happy to support the Government in that endeavour, having recently heard from a wide range of kinship carers in our evidence sessions.
Nevertheless, despite those welcome announcements, challenges remain. Support for kinship families still varies dramatically depending on where they live. The Family Rights Group’s 2024 audit found that a third of local authorities do not yet have a kinship care policy in place, despite being required to have one, and a survey by Foundations showed that not all have a designated kinship care worker. That postcode lottery simply is not good enough. Every family should be able to expect clear, consistent and accessible support.
The further challenge of the level of financial support now on offer through the fund disproportionately affects children with the highest need. The Kinship 2024 annual survey found that more than one in eight kinship carers said that they were concerned about their ability to continue caring for their kinship—
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing the debate and on her speech. It brought a tear to my eye when she mentioned the child and their pocket money. That is the one thing that should stay with us in this debate: how important this fund is to those young people.
The funding is crucial for the roughly 55,000 adoptive families across the UK. It ensures that both children and their guardians receive the care and support they need. It is estimated that around 80% of adopted children suffer abuse, neglect or violence prior to adoption, with the average child spending 15 months in care and often moving through several foster placements. That instability is traumatic for anyone, but especially for young children, so it is essential that the right level of support is provided to these children, as well as to the families who care for them every day.
I was recently contacted by a constituent who adopted three children in 2007. Post-adoption, all three were diagnosed with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and early-life trauma. Now young adults, they have had involvement with CAMHS and some support from the adult mental health services. The parents have fought tirelessly for the help that their children need, often resorting to self-funding therapies and education.
In May 2023, their middle daughter requested life story work, which is critical for her development, but that has been halted due to the changes in the ASGSF. A very vulnerable, disabled, brain-injured young woman has therefore been left without the therapy she needs to navigate an incredibly difficult stage of her life. Their youngest child’s specialist occupational therapy has also been affected by the funding changes, but thankfully her therapists were able to adjust the package to fewer sessions to bring it under the £3,000 cap—although that is far from ideal.
We need a clear commitment from the Government to fund that support not just next year but in perpetuity. Families need the reassurance of a long-term plan; without it, we risk more children going into long-term care without the support that they should have.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank Carers UK and all those fighting for the rights of carers—they are too often hidden in society, but some of them are here in the Public Gallery. I will speak about the impact of changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund in Bedford, where children’s services are already under extreme pressure.
At a recent children’s services overview and scrutiny committee, the council heard that more than two thirds of young carers in Bedford are not formally identified or supported, and the proportion who have high needs has more than tripled in the last three years. These are children who are taking on responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, giving medicines and providing emotional and personal care, sometimes for hours each day before going to school. This is not a marginal issue; these children are carrying an adult burden while still at school. On top of that, Ofsted recently downgraded Bedford borough’s children’s services to “requires improvement”, warning that too many vulnerable children are being placed in unregistered and unregulated homes.
While I acknowledge the financial pressure this Government have inherited and know that difficult spending decisions will have to be made at national and local level, it is deeply concerning that against this backdrop the Government have cut the fair access limit for therapeutic support under the ASGSF from £5,000 to £3,000 per child. Families caring for children who have already experienced trauma and loss will now have less access to the specialist therapy that can make the difference between stability and crisis.
I urge the Minister to reconsider this cut or, at the very least, introduce transitional arrangements to ensure that families already in the system are not left without support.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for an excellent and heartfelt speech. I want to share the story of my constituent Lisa—I thank her for allowing me to do so—who adopted her children when they were four and six years old. After that, they were able to access what was then called the adoption support fund and specialist occupational therapy, which Lisa called a lifesaver for them.
Since then, Lisa’s eldest child has accessed various support options, but the situation has proven more complex with her younger child. In Lisa’s own words,
“She did her best to hold things together at school for many years—masking anxiety, struggling with sensory issues, and living in a near-constant state of hypervigilance. At home, however, we saw the cost: meltdowns, self-harming, substance abuse and social withdrawal. In her mid-teens, she was diagnosed with ADHD, complex PTSD, OCD, depression and anxiety. And yet, she has not had access to therapy for over four years.”
Recently, a tailored, long-term development approach was finally designed for their child, with plans to deliver it over a three-year period of careful and considered therapeutic intervention, but a few weeks ago Lisa received a devastating blow: the specialist provider, who in their experience was the only one who truly understood their daughter, would no longer be used by the local authority because of the cost. It is impossible not to link that decision to the fund’s cap being lowered by 40%. They are now waiting to hear about possible alternatives from the local authority—plunged back into uncertainty just as her daughter starts her A-level studies.
Lisa played her part. They have attended specialist training, driven hundreds of miles for therapy, reduced working hours and given everything to advocate for their children, but there is only so much they can do without Government action. The Government must do the right thing for Lisa, her daughter and families like hers across the UK by reversing the cuts to the individual funding and confirming long-term funding.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. To ensure all Members get a chance to speak, we are going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes. I call Josh Newbury.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing the debate.
I begin by declaring that as a family, we will begin using the adoption and special guardianship support fund from next week, so this is current and personal for me. As I am about to find out, the ASGSF is a lifeline for thousands of families like mine up and down the country. Education is where this matters so much. Despite changing attitudes, better training and awareness in schools, and innovations such as the pupil premium, too many adopted children and children in special guardianships still fall behind. If we give them the right support early, however, we can give them an equal start in school and the same opportunity to learn, make friends and feel comfortable in the classroom.
It is important to give that view on how much difference this £50 million, and many other sources of support, make for families like mine, because if we listened only to Liberal Democrat MPs today, we might, regrettably, lose sight of that. I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today that the ASGSF will continue for another year. However, I hope that the Department will still consider multi-year certainty, which would benefit families, providers and local authorities hugely.
Ruth Cadbury
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that we are hearing that some adopters, or potential adopters, are being put off going even through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support, which of course has to be long term, as he just mentioned?
Josh Newbury
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When my husband and I were going through the adoption journey and had our training and information evenings, the post-adoption support offer was very much part of that. If families feel that they cannot take that step because they fear they will be unable to get support, that is a great concern. I know that the Minister is also concerned about that.
I also know that the Minister will be carefully considering the impact of changes made to the ASGSF in April this year. The £3,000 fair access limit will, for some, be enough, but last year, almost half of children received more than that, reflecting the often complex needs assisted by the fund.
As we look ahead, I urge the Minister to see what can be done to build in flexibility. I hear that families often cannot access the fund quickly enough, so they reach crisis point and sadly, in some cases, placements break down. Quite apart from the devastating impact of breakdowns on families, the cost to local authorities is immense.
The ASGSF must be part of a holistic, early-help model, not crisis care. If at all possible, we also need look at how assessment costs are funded, particularly for complex cases where need is greater and for families in financial hardship. This House has always been united on one thing: children deserve stable, loving homes and the support to make sure that those remain their forever homes. By building on what we have now, we can ensure that the fund continues to support families and remains fit for the future.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate. I am pleased that each time Liberal Democrat MPs raise this issue, the Government back the fund.
I want the Government to hear what the ASGSF means for one family in my Esher and Walton constituency. Two of my constituents adopted a two-year-old boy. They were his seventh family. He had already suffered physical abuse and was displaying behavioural issues. It was clear to my constituents that significant professional support was needed to prevent this adoption from breaking down. That was provided by the ASGSF. Without it, my constituents do not believe they could have coped. Now, their son is six and attends a mainstream school.
The delay in announcing money for the ASGSF this year led to a five-month gap in support for my constituents’ son. During this time, he became more aggressive and disruptive. Without the ASGSF’s continuation in April, they would have struggled to maintain the adoption. However, even while extending the ASGSF for one year, the Government cut it by 40%. To cover the resulting shortfall, my constituents have had to use some of their savings. They cannot afford to do so next year.
For my constituents, there is no alternative to the ASGSF. They applied for mental health support for their son from Mindworks Surrey. They have been on the waiting list for three years. They waited more than two years for an appointment through developmental paediatrics, but health professionals did not understand the child’s case and nearly misdiagnosed him. The services unlocked through the fund have given this boy a chance of happiness. He has been through more than most adults will go through in their entire lives. To restrict support and leave him and his family in limbo is cruel.
When the Minister lays out the details of the fund’s future, I urge her as strongly as I possibly can to secure it for the long term, reverse this year’s cruel and damaging cuts, and secure this child’s future.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate.
I want to speak today of families who make a life-changing decision to care for children through adoption and special guardianship. It is a noble thing to do, but it is not always easy. The children have often faced trauma, instability and loss. I have met a lot of those families in my Calder Valley constituency. They are loving parents, fighting to do the best for their children. They do not ask for praise or reward, but they do ask for support and stability. The adoption and special guardianship support fund was created to provide that support. It has helped thousands of children to access therapy, assessments and the kind of specialist care that can be transformative.
More than half of the children looked after through the special guardianship fund have special educational needs. That figure rises to 80% in some cases. They need things such as trauma support, speech therapy, counselling and sensory support.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I met the representatives from the Yorkshire Adoption Agency and a number of adoptive parents this week. The one point they made to me is that the earlier that therapy takes place, the better the life chances and opportunities. Does my hon. Friend agree that having that fund available over a longer period is unbelievably important for the peace of mind of parents, families and guardians?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I was just about to come to that point. Stability and long-term decisions are key. Families need certainty, not just this year, but for the years ahead. Right now, there is no confirmation of funding for 2026-27. I note that there was a written ministerial statement today, although I do not think we know the exact numbers.
As a recovering member of local government, I know far too well the long-term costs when money is saved in the wrong place. I urge the Minister to hear that point and to make sure that we are making the right decisions on this issue, that we are not saving money in the wrong place and that we are giving that long-term stability and support. I know none of these decisions are easy and they are being taken against a backdrop that is worse than any Government have inherited. Let us make sure that we get this right and that we support the people who need it most.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate. In a recent parent and carer survey examining the impact of cuts to the ASGSF, the findings were alarming. Some 71% of children have seen a reduction in the number of therapy sessions, and 34% of families have been forced into an unethical choice between having an assessment of their child’s needs but no treatment, or treatment of unassessed needs.
The cuts to therapeutic packages have led to an increase in school exclusions, which were already far greater than for non-care-experienced children. They have led to an increase in child-on-parent violence, impacting 75% of families. There are children experiencing suicidal feelings who no longer have therapeutic support. Only 1% of families answering the survey have found the new £3,000 fair access limit sufficient to meet their child’s needs. Just 1%—that is a dreadful statistic.
The Government’s changes to the ASGSF have contributed to placements without adequate therapeutic support, despite us knowing the harm that this causes. The Government should think again, consult with families and the sector, reverse the cuts and ensure that a permanent fund is created that allows all families access to the right levels of specialist therapeutic support, right from the start and throughout their young lives. Only then can children heal and thrive.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Unfortunately, we are going to have to reduce the time limit to a minute and a half. I call Martin Wrigley.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate and on the passion of her speech.
I would like to raise the serious challenges that adoptive families in my constituency face in accessing the adoption support fund and wider post-adoption services. Too often, the system is designed for crisis rather than prevention. Overstretched social workers are forced to firefight, and families wait months, even years, for help. One family in my constituency told me that their daughter showed clear needs from the moment she was placed with them as a baby, yet only now, at the age of eight, is she undergoing an education, health and care plan assessment. That is because her behaviour has escalated to the point at which she can no longer cope in mainstream school. For years, her parents fought for therapies and support, but they received only fragmented and inconsistent help.
Funding is another problem. Last year, a child received 14 sessions of therapy through the fund, but this year it has been cut to eight; the family is expected to pay privately if more is needed. They have already waited 16 weeks for a referral to a specialist paediatrician as the first step towards an EHCP for suspected foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Those are not isolated cases. Most children placed for adoption in the UK have experienced trauma, neglect or abuse, with a lifelong impact on development and behaviour. I urge the Government to rethink their approach. A care package should be the starting point for the adoption placement, not something that parents battle for—
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate.
This is, I believe, the fifth time in as many months that I have spoken on the ASGSF. I reiterate that it is not a luxury but a lifeline for some of most vulnerable children, many of whom desperately need consistent therapeutic intervention to cope with the traumas of loss, neglect and separation.
Although I am pleased to hear that the Government have committed to fund the ASGSF for another year, that will not undo the damage that children across this country have already faced. I recently met the Oakdale Group in my constituency, which provides therapeutic interventions through the support fund. Many families have expressed concern that a reduction in fair access will lead to poorer outcomes and the need for more therapy in the longer term.
Changing, suspending and tinkering with the ASGSF has led to a huge backlog of applications. Many children now face gaps of up to four months with no therapy at all. One family in my constituency is still waiting for their application to be accepted. For traumatised children, consistency is everything. The direct consequences of this Government’s actions have been severe: self-harm, suicidal ideation and thoughts, violence in the home and, in the most heartbreaking of cases, adoption break- down. The full impact of these cuts and delays is yet to be seen.
I ask the Minister directly: will she commit today to a permanent ringfenced fund, removing the need for year-on-year decision making? Will she restore certainty, stability and security for the children who depend on it?
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for her passionate advocacy. There is sometimes a misunderstanding that adoption and kinship care are somehow the fairytale ending to a traumatic situation, but I know at first hand that that is not the case. When I moved into the care of my grandparents as a teenager, I was angry and full of trauma, and I gave my nan and pops way too much grief and not enough appreciation. It was not until years later that I got to access therapy. Hearing the contributions from others today, I wish I had access earlier.
I want to address the Government’s announcement today of the year extension. I want to be honest about how I feel about it—I feel like it is a sop. Families do not renew every financial year; they are for life, and they need long-term certainty about the fund.
Bobby Dean
I absolutely agree, and that was the point that I was about to make. I am sure the Minister will tell me that money is tight, but I ask her over what time horizon she is considering this—five, 10 or 15 years? Families know that this is not a cost-cutting measure. They know how expensive it gets for the state if arrangements fail.
A family in my constituency—a couple of elderly grandparents caring for a teenager who keeps making attempts on their own life—cannot get the support they need, and that child is now under the care of the local authority, which is a far more expensive measure. How are the Government evaluating this fund and the impact it has on their finances? To me, it feels like they are saving a penny a day, and it is costing them a pound tomorrow. I say this to the Minister: restore the funding, guarantee it for good, and stand by those families who are doing our society such a service.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I remind the Opposition Front Benchers that if they take the full allotted 10 minutes, the Minister’s time to respond to the debate will be squeezed.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I warmly congratulate my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for so brilliantly outlining the issues at the start. I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning, alongside that of all the carers and parents who are here today and those who are not, who have been filling our inboxes and cannot afford to be here because they are busy looking after vulnerable and traumatised children who need our help.
There have been many powerful and moving contributions today from hon. Members across the House. I salute the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and his partner for stepping up to adopt, and I hope they get the support they need from the ASGSF that they have applied for. However, I was disappointed by his party political swipe, because until now, there has been cross-party consensus in all the debates I have been in on this issue that the changes made in April were short-sighted and extremely damaging.
It is no accident that when I secured my urgent question in April, the day after the fund had expired, the Minister came forward and announced its extension. It is no accident that we are having this debate today, and that a written ministerial statement has come out with this fig leaf of an extension of the fund into next year. The reality is that, yes, there has been cross-party consensus, but we Liberal Democrats have led the charge on this and dragged the Minister, kicking and screaming, to make the announcements.
I really hope that we do not end up being blindsided once again, as we were in April. We all welcomed the announcement in the Chamber that day but then, quietly, in the middle of the Easter recess, the announcement was snuck out that the fair access limits were to be reduced, the assessment grants slashed and the matched funding cut. These parents, carers and families deserve far better. I really hope that Ministers and officials have learnt the lessons from earlier this year.
It is worth repeating and reminding ourselves who we are talking about today: some of the most vulnerable children in our communities, who have suffered unimaginable trauma, including abuse and neglect, sometimes witnessing unspeakable violence in their homes. Their carers—both adoptive parents and kinship carers—have made the most amazing commitment to step up and provide a loving, stable home to help heal and give them a second chance in life. The impact of these short-sighted cuts to the grants has been utterly devastating. The decision has resulted in a backlog of applications, delaying assessments and therapeutic support, and leaving already deeply traumatised children with a heightened sense of abandonment.
I received this email from a parent in June:
“My youngest daughter has recently had her sensory therapy put on hold for two months, due to all the delays by the government. My daughter started her new therapy at the beginning of February this year, had 4 therapy sessions and then had to stop due to the uncertainty around the funding.
We were just starting to see real progress when the therapy stopped abruptly. It was what I can only describe as ‘opening Pandora’s box and violently slamming it shut again’. The regression we saw was severe. We experienced behaviours (including feral screaming), which our daughter had not displayed in over 4 years. This regression not only affected our youngest daughter, but also her older sister (who is also traumatised).”
The charity Home for Good and Safe Families recently surveyed parents and carers to understand the impact of the recent changes to the fund. It found that the loss of therapeutic support is already affecting many families, particularly those without the means to pay privately, leading to increased inequality in access to services, with financial vulnerability closely linked to greater disruption.
In mid-July, one adoption support provider reported that only 50% of their families waiting for support had any funding from the ASGSF in place. That has raised serious concerns about the impact on children’s mental health, with the vast majority of parents and carers saying that they are “extremely” or “very concerned” that their children’s mental health will be negatively affected. For some children and families, long periods without support have caused extreme difficulties—declines in mental health, suicidal thoughts, self-harming, school absence and an escalation of violence in the home. These are children whose lives have been characterised by loss and separation, for whom trusting and consistent relationships are vital.
The cuts have meant that the Purple Elephant Project, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), right on the border of mine, has reduced its yearly programme of support to just 26 weeks. Six months is a long time in a child’s life. For some children and young people, gaps in therapy greatly risk their willingness to engage in therapy in the future. The Government’s failure to communicate their planned changes has also led to providers reporting substantial financial losses, particularly small providers such as Purple Elephant, which is relying on crowdfunding and emergency funds to stay afloat. Some, including Purple Elephant, are already having to cut their staff, and they are concerned that some therapists will leave the profession altogether. We cannot afford that when we look at the scale of the mental health crisis not just among children in adoptive and kinship care, but more broadly across society.
The irony and the frustration is that the Government have sabotaged a tool that works. An evaluation of the fund in 2022 found that at the end of funded support, the mental health difficulties of school-age children improved, and there were also significant improvements in family functioning. Some 94% of parents say the fund is “absolutely vital” or “very important” to their family and is a need that could not be met elsewhere.
The ASGSF helps families to stay together and prevents family placement breakdown. It also helps children to stay and thrive in school. One adoptive parent I met in my constituency was very clear that her child would not have been able to stay in school without the supportive therapy provided by the ASGSF. As we have heard, there is anecdotal evidence of potential adopters being put off going through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support. We know that for every child adopted, £1.3 million-worth of value is created through improved outcomes from adoption, and there are the lower financial costs of adoption compared with care. The economic case is unquestionable.
The Government keep telling us—the Minister with responsibility for early years, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), just told us this in the main Chamber—that giving the children the best start in life is one of the Government’s biggest priorities. If they really mean that and want to break down barriers to opportunity, this Minister needs to understand the outrage and despair not just of Members here, but of families and carers up and down the country. The Government have sabotaged a supremely effective fund.
Aside from today’s announcement, there are rumours about the Department reforming the fund, and a paper has been released by Adoption England that proposes devolving funding to regional adoption agencies or local authorities as grants. A whole host of organisations are publicly opposed to those proposals and are concerned that the model will compromise fair and equitable access of funding for all children, regardless of where they live or the agency they have been adopted through.
Furthermore, regional adoption agencies are typically responsible only for adoption services. We are not sure what this would mean for special guardians or those who have child arrangement orders in place and how the funding would be split between kinship families and adoptive families. The Government desperately need to consult families and sector experts. I note that today’s written ministerial statement alludes to engagement—not before time, because people were not consulted or engaged with when the changes were made at Easter.
I believe, and I have told the Minister this privately and publicly, that she and her Department deeply care—as I and my hon. Friends do—about the lives of children and families. But I think that the failure so far in joined-up policymaking and engagement is actually being driven by the Treasury, not by her or her Department. If she needs help with the Treasury, which is desperate for savings, she has support here in all parts of the Chamber, and we will continue to bat for children up and down this country.
I reiterate the calls that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex made at the start of this debate. We need to see a permanent ringfenced fund restored to the previous full amount in terms of grants per child. That will mean extending and expanding the size of the fund. I have told the Minister this before: she can find the money in the £46.5 million budget that the Department had for advertising, consultancy and marketing costs in the past year. She should halve that budget and instead expand the ASGSF by 50% so that the fair access limits can be restored to what they were. There needs to be an end to the surprise annual announcements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) said, children are not adopted or taken into kinship care for one financial year. That is done for life, and with love, and this Government should honour that.
I hope that the Government will start to engage properly with the sector and families up and down the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, I ask for a two-year moratorium on further changes so that the reforms are evidence-based. It is incumbent on all of us as corporate parents to ensure that our most vulnerable children are properly supported and given the best second chance in life, which many of these children are being offered. This is a tiny budget in the context of huge Government spending, but it has a massive impact on those precious and fragile lives. It is time to think again. It is time to do far better. It is time to put children, who are our country’s future, first.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. First, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this incredibly important debate about support for some of the most vulnerable children in this country. The adoption and special guardianship support fund, set up under the Conservative Government in 2015, has, for many years, provided much needed therapeutic support to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care.
I pay tribute to all the adoptive parents, foster carers and kinship carers out there who step up and welcome a child into their home: you are amazing, and I am humbled by the sacrifices you make and the love you give every day. I know it is not always easy. Some of these children, who have often suffered neglect, abuse and violence, have complex needs and can be challenging to care for. There will be days when it feels difficult and never-ending, when you feel alone and unsupported. But you keep going, and are continually there for your child, loving, protecting and supporting them. Given all that you do, in extremely difficult circumstances, the least that can be expected is a reasonable level of support from this Government for you and the child in your care.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund is an important part of that and, frankly, the way that cuts to the fund have been handled beggars belief. It is unacceptable to leave families for months on end without certainty about the funding they rely on and then, at the very last minute, to confirm a 40% cut to the therapy fund from £5,000 to £3,000, the removal of the entire amount for specialist assessment and the cessation of match funding for the most complex cases.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, and I echo the sentiment that she has expressed so far. My constituent Sara Taylor came to me to make the case for the restoration of the fund. Her key point was that the economic and fiscal consequences, as Members across the House have said, are so obviously detrimental. If we do not spend the money on this, that means that the costs are displaced to society in other ways for the whole generation to come. Does my hon. Friend agree with that sentiment?
Rebecca Paul
My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that
“we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”.—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.]
Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities.
This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly.
Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund.
In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said:
“We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.”
They continued:
“The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.”
In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund.
One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards?
I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding.
I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027.
Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This morning, I laid before Parliament a written ministerial statement confirming that the adoption and special guardianship support fund will continue next year. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important debate, and I thank all other hon. Members who helped to secure it. I acknowledge the contributions from the chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and from the chair of the kinship care APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I acknowledge her lobbying to extend the fund.
Kicking and screaming is not something I do, however, and the personal attacks of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), lower this debate and what we wish to achieve. I also say to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), that her party had many opportunities to secure the adoption and special guardianship support fund when it was in Government, and it chose not to—in fact, it reduced the funding. I felt it was appropriate to put those things in order.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about this Government, the adoption and special guardianship support fund and our record of supporting the wellbeing of children. I have heard the many contributions and the heartwarming descriptions of situations that really do affect the lives of children who have been adopted or taken into kinship care. The adoption and special guardianship support fund enables valuable therapeutic support to be provided to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care. As I said, I recognise the particular needs of this cohort of children and young people. I know many of them will have had a challenging early life experiences.
Janet Daby
I will make as much progress as I can, because I have been asked many questions in this debate and in many other scenarios and areas. It is very important that I am at least heard for the majority of my speech.
That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that these children and their families have support available that meets their needs. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm that applications to the adoption and special guardianship support fund that run into the next financial year, 2026-27, can now be made. That is part of a wider continuation of the scheme in the next financial year, and full details will be set out later in the autumn. I am absolutely behind making sure that we can present that information in a timely way. That is clearly acknowledged.
I am pleased to say that we will also begin public engagement in the new year to consider the future of the adoption and special guardianship support fund into 2028 and beyond. I am keen to work across Government with children, families and sector representatives to understand more about what support can and should be provided at a sustainable level.
The adoption and special guardianship support fund has now been running for 10 years, and in that time, it has helped to provide support for more than 54,000 children. Independent evaluations have found that the fund has been successful in improving the lives of recipient children and their families. The last independent evaluation of the fund in 2022 found that 83% of parents and guardians had found support funded by the adoption and special guardianship support fund “helpful” or “very helpful”. We also know from parents and carers about the difference the adoption and special guardianship support fund has made to their lives.
However, the fund is not the only source of support available to adopted and special guardianship children and their families, although it is a significant one. Adoption England is a key partner of the Department in improving adoption support. We have provided it with £8.8 million this year for specific projects to improve adoption support. That includes funding for developing national standards, developing centres of excellence as multidisciplinary teams with education and health, and establishing services designed to respond to adoptive families in crisis quicker and more effectively.
We are working to improve the support available to children in kinship care. Last year, the Government announced a £40 million package to test the payment of an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting children to move into kinship care. We have also published updated statutory guidance on kinship care for local authorities, and we appointed the first kinship care ambassador to advocate for kinship families across Government. Across England, more than 140 kinship peer-to-peer support groups are already up and running, providing kinship carers with vital spaces to connect, share their experiences and support one another. Alongside that, a comprehensive package of training and support is being actively delivered, ensuring that every kinship carer has access to the resources they need to thrive. We have also expanded the role of the virtual school heads to champion the education, attainment and attendance of children in kinship care who were previously in care.
This Government’s approach to informing children’s social care will transform services and transition towards earlier intervention. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will shift the focus of the children’s social care system and put children’s needs first. Our landmark investments in family help and Best Start family hubs will help families to access earlier support before they reach crisis point. Those measures and investments are alongside the adoption and special guardianship support fund so that specialist support is available should families need it.
On health, Ministers and officials engage regularly with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England on how we can improve support for children, and we will continue to do that. The most recent NHS plan sets out how we intend to improve mental health services.
In order to ensure that the fund was financially stable in 2025-26, I announced a number of changes to the management of the budget. In the interests of transparency, I committed to making the equalities impact assessment, which helped to inform decision making, available for review. On 17 July, I placed the assessment in the Libraries of both Houses. It provides a breakdown of the available data and explains the rationale behind our decision to make changes.
In particular, it highlights the fact that, had we not made changes, many children could have been prevented from accessing therapy. The number of children accessing the fund has increased by 2,000 year on year. The equalities impact assessment is kept under review, and my officials update it regularly to better understand the impact of any changes on vulnerable children. The Department also publishes annual data on the adoption and special guardianship support fund.
Rachael Maskell
Does the hon. Member share my concern that if we are going to make the investment for the long term, we have to look at the number of children in care? In 2010, there were 64,000, and in 2024, 83,630. That places significant demand on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Will she look at the work that York council is doing on halving the number of children in care? Surely that will reduce demand on the fund.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for all her comments. Over the last decade, the number of looked-after children in care has increased by 22% to 84,000. The previous Government have a lot to answer for. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are trying to make sure that we do intervention and prevention work early so that we support more families as early as we can. Through family group decision making, we are supporting support families and friends to come forward to provide a home for a child where that is the right thing for them.
More needs to be done. We are getting on with and trying to do a lot, but there is still so much more to address.
Tom Gordon
In an Adjournment debate on 3 April, the Minister said:
“This debate has given me the opportunity to talk about our plans to ensure that all adopted children get the support they need”.—[Official Report, 3 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 558.]
Just a week and a few days later, she went on to cut the support fund and the fees that people could access through it. At the time of that debate, did she know that those cuts to the funds and access were coming?
Janet Daby
Just for clarification, at that debate I always said that more information would follow in due course. As soon as the decisions regarding the fund had been made, that information was laid before the House.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must continue to be grateful to the parents and carers of adopted and kinship children, in particular for the compassion and dedication they have shown in giving vulnerable children the chance of having a happy, stable home. I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ remarks, and I will continue to do so. I know the importance of this debate to many families outside this House. I and my officials will continue to work closely with families and sector representatives over the coming months to understand what support should be provided at a sustainable level.
Future of Terrestrial Television
(1 day, 5 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
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. We are here to debate a hidden threat to a vital service that most of our constituents use every week, and that service is digital terrestrial TV, commonly known as Freeview. So that we are absolutely clear what we are talking about, it is a TV signal that is picked up through the aerial on our roofs. It lets us access broadcast TV channels from the likes of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, including ITV Border in my constituency, STV in the rest of Scotland, and S4C in Wales, as well as over 100 more channels serving a range of interests.
Freeview is a universal service reaching 98.5% of the UK population, including those in remote and rural areas. It is available at no additional cost over and above the licence fee. This is a crucial point: people do not need to pay any additional monthly bills to watch terrestrial TV; all they need is a TV set and an aerial.
The options for watching TV have broadened in the last few years, with the arrival of TV streaming over the internet, or IPTV, as it is known. Many of us enjoy those services, but the fact is that to do so, someone needs a high-speed fixed broadband subscription of sufficient speed and reliability, and not everyone has that.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I know he is acutely aware that many communities that he and I represent in the Scottish borders rely on that television service. At the same time, they do not have access to a high-speed, high quality broadband connection unless they pay significantly for it. Does he agree that we need a commitment from the Government to extend the Freeview service to reassure residents in those communities?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and throughout my speech I will make the point that nobody should be required to pay to watch television. As he said, it is particularly an issue in rural areas, where broadband services can be extremely patchy and speeds highly variable. In more urban and suburban areas, broadband outages are also far from uncommon.
Terrestrial TV has a reliability of close to 99%, which broadband does not. Almost half—45.1%—of broadband customers experienced an outage lasting more than 48 hours in the past year. Indeed, Biggar and the surrounding communities in my constituency experienced an outage of 36 hours. Even as high-speed coverage increases through initiatives such as Project Gigabit, take-up is entirely a different matter.
Research from the consultancy EY estimates that by 2040, some 5.5 million premises will not have taken up a high-speed fixed broadband subscription. Today, some people cannot access fixed broadband because the signal where they live is not fast or reliable enough. Other people simply cannot afford to pay for fixed broadband subscriptions on top of other bills. Millions of people are relying exclusively on mobile for access to the internet. Indeed, data from Citizens Advice suggested that, in 2022 alone, up to 1 million people cancelled their broadband subscription because of the high cost of living.
That is why terrestrial TV remains essential—because it is universal. Indeed, it is the guarantee of universalism in British broadcasting, and that is a priceless asset. For terrestrial TV to provide that bedrock guarantee of universal access, complementing internet streaming, gives the UK the best of both worlds. It is a hybrid model that is so much more robust than putting all our eggs in one basket and relying on a single point of failure.
In addition, the service remains hugely popular and widely used. More than 80% of BBC and ITV content is watched on linear broadcast TV—that is, live on channels such as BBC One or ITV2. Of that viewing, about half—a huge amount—is through terrestrial TV. Indeed, it remains the main way TV content is consumed in the UK.
The reason why we are having this debate today is that despite being a widely used and, in my view, essential service, it is currently under threat of being switched off within a decade. The licences that support terrestrial TV expire in 2034, and the Government have so far not provided a long-term commitment. Yet there is no need to consider switching off terrestrial TV in the mid-2030s, be that for political, technological or financial reasons.
The Government have the opportunity to announce that they support terrestrial TV’s role for the longer term. Nobody, or not very many people, is suggesting that the BBC should be switched off when its current charter concludes in 2027. The projections suggest that terrestrial TV will continue to make a crucial contribution and serve millions of viewers well past that date. However, there are some voices calling for an end to terrestrial TV by the mid-2030s and a transition of all viewing to online streaming only. The BBC director general, Tim Davie, recently said as much, and there are those in parts of the broadcast and telecoms sectors who would certainly welcome it.
Ministers have a decision to make, and I am delighted to see this Minister with us today to respond to the debate. I know she encourages debate and discussion on this issue, and I particularly congratulate her on tackling the issue head-on with the forum that she has convened on the future of TV distribution. I hope that, in her remarks later, she will be able to tell us more about the work of the forum and how it will feed into her decision making, as well as about the timescales she anticipates for that.
I know from my meetings with ITV and Sky that broadcasters are eager to hear from the Minister too. This issue has flown a bit under the radar so far, and any decision could have profound consequences for people across the UK. Indeed, the principal reason why we are having this debate is to raise awareness about the potential end to terrestrial TV, which is too little understood. Recent research from the Digital Poverty Alliance, which I commend to Members, revealed that 69% of the public were completely unaware that the future of terrestrial TV was under threat at all, and 73% of people polled believed that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035.
That is really my message today—any talk about a switch-off of terrestrial TV in the 2030s is completely premature and unrealistic. The Government have the opportunity to take that possibility off the table and give certainty for the service into the 2040s. We could use various analogies to exemplify the point about a hybrid model of delivery being best. I would make the analogy with the debate about access to cash, on which I have long campaigned. The creeping withdrawal of banks and free cashpoints, especially from smaller towns and more rural settings, means that we are sleepwalking to a cashless society. Many people value the ability to make cashless transactions, and no doubt the convenience of digital payments will continue to expand, but the fact is that many people still want to be able to access cash, and the Government rightly stepped in to provide a guarantee that cash would remain available.
Exactly the same argument applies in respect of terrestrial TV. Indeed, it is an even stronger argument, because the viewing rates for terrestrial TV are far higher than the rates of use of cash. Even as more of us stream more content online, it is terrestrial TV that guarantees universal access and that is there when fixed broadband fails. The same research I cited earlier revealed that 70% of the public feel reassured by knowing that terrestrial TV is available as a fall-back option, even if they do not use it on a daily basis.
I am sure that we will hear during the debate about a range of factors that Ministers need to consider as they make decisions about the future of terrestrial TV. What cannot be denied is that any move to switch it off would hit the most vulnerable people the hardest, including those struggling with the cost of living, many older people, people living with disabilities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) highlighted, those in remote, rural and island communities. They all rely on terrestrial TV to stay connected and, in many cases, do not have the choice of simply switching to streaming.
Debates about broadcasting are often dominated by perspectives from what might be called a media elite, by which I mean those who tend to be in and of the big cities—London, but not just London—and a bit more middle class and a little younger. That is no criticism of those individuals, but we have to be aware that not everyone sees things from their perspective, and we, as legislators, need to be focused on ensuring that we serve the whole country, including those whose lives are quite different. When the Minister is being told by broadcasters and others that the direction of travel is away from terrestrial TV, cash payments or many other things, I urge her to bear in mind, as I am sure she will, that so many of the people we represent see things differently.
Some may argue that we just need to accept that more and more services are moving online. Some in the industry have even suggested that the threat of losing access to TV is a good way of forcing people who are not online to get online. However, as Elizabeth Anderson, the chief executive officer of the Digital Poverty Alliance, has said:
“What would be unconscionable…is to use any threat of the removal of the terrestrial TV service as a coercive stick with which to force people to take on new and unwelcome financial burdens simply to continue being connected to shared televisual experiences. The millions of people who watch terrestrial TV every day as their preferred mode of TV viewing deserve more respect than to be treated in that way.”
It is simply a fact that a large category of people who today enjoy accessing TV through the terrestrial service would be excluded if the service were switched off in the 2030s.
Let me be clear: guaranteeing the long-term future of terrestrial TV is by no means anti-digital, as some may claim. In fact, protecting the future of terrestrial TV is what makes our media industry one of the most digitally diverse globally. Losing terrestrial TV could damage the viability of UK-wide broadcast networks, which are relied on by a range of other sectors, including radio.
I expect that the Minister will refer to the financial viability of the service. In fact, terrestrial TV represents a very modest cost to broadcasters right now—less than 3% of the licence fee to fund a universal service. Indeed, research by the consultancy EY indicates that the costs of terrestrial TV could be reduced substantially in the future if it has the certainty of a longer life span to justify investment.
The financial implications of any switch-off also need to be factored in. As I have already explained, there would be new costs for viewers who would need to take out high- speed fixed broadband subscriptions; on average, the cost for them would be an extra £214 a year. It would also mean new costs for the Government, who would potentially have to fund the upgrades necessary to make the internet infrastructure suitable for a huge surge in demand. EY estimates that that cost would be £1 billion annually as an ongoing—indeed, permanent—subsidy. In reality, there would be a shift in the cost burden of TV distribution, away from the broadcasters and on to the shoulders of viewers and taxpayers. As things stand, we would lose a vital service and we would all pay more for less. Clearly, that looks like a good deal for the BBC and other broadcasters; what is less clear is whether it would be a good deal for my constituents and those of other MPs.
Broadcasters should be careful what they wish for. As I have already said, the reality is that only a tiny percentage of the licence fee goes on paying for terrestrial TV. For the price of the licence fee, the BBC guarantees universal, free-to-air access to broadcast TV content to virtually everyone in the UK. Without that universality, it might be a lot harder to make the case for the licence fee as a flat tax on TV ownership.
I say again that we should get some clarity from the Government and that the possibility of losing terrestrial TV in the next decade should be taken off the table. Instead, let us give viewers the guarantee of universal access to Great British broadcasting through the best-of-both-worlds model that we have today, retaining it well into the future.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for the hard work that he has already put into this area.
I am very pleased that broadband coverage in my Isle of Wight West constituency is improving—it was at 94.2% in 2022 and is projected to reach 99.4% by 2040—thanks to our very own fibre company, WightFibre. However, actual take-up tells a different story, and it is one that we cannot ignore. Only 63.5% of households were using high-speed broadband in 2022, and even by 2040 only 76.1% of households are expected to be using it. That means that in 15 years’ time, nearly a quarter of households still might not be online. For such households, terrestrial TV is not a back-up; it is their primary connection to news, entertainment and public service content—and not just reruns of “Mrs Brown’s Boys”. That is especially true for older residents, those in rural areas and families facing financial pressures.
As hon. Members have already said today, terrestrial TV is free, reliable and accessible. It does not require expensive subscriptions or high-speed internet. It just works. At a time when loneliness and isolation are growing, it plays a vital role in promoting wellbeing, inclusion and a sense of community. Three quarters of people say that terrestrial TV has helped to reduce loneliness, and among those aged 65 and over the figure rises to 87%. Additionally, I worry that any decision to switch off terrestrial TV could further exacerbate the cost of living crisis and deepen existing inequalities in our communities.
I know that not everyone on the Isle of Wight has the means to afford high-speed internet or multiple streaming subscriptions. For many households, especially those on fixed incomes or struggling with rising bills, terrestrial TV is not just a preference; it is a necessity. Asking such families to transition to online-only services could mean they face additional costs of hundreds of pounds a year, not only for subscriptions but for upgraded devices and internet packages. That is a burden that many of those families simply cannot bear, and it is imperative that we do not impose it on them.
It is also important to realise that any imposed switch-off would not have a limited impact; it would be deeply felt across our communities. The reality is that some people would be left behind, and many people would feel a greater sense of entirely avoidable social isolation.
This shift is not just a technical one, but a social one. If we move too quickly or without providing proper support, we risk entrenching inequality, whereby access to media and public service content becomes a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Terrestrial TV helps to level the playing field. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their income or their location, can stay connected to other people around the world—and that is worth protecting.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Before I call Sir John Whittingdale, let me say that I do not intend to impose a time limit, but if you keep to about four minutes, we will get everybody in.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Twigg; I will do my best to keep to your limit.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on obtaining the debate. This is an important issue, and he is absolutely right that not enough discussion has taken place. Even though the potential for switch-off is a number of years away, it is an important issue that we need to start considering now. However, I will take a slightly different line from my right hon. Friend, although I will try not to fall into his category of media elite—I do not think I would include myself in that.
Twenty years ago, I became Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the first report that we conducted was into analogue switch-off. Older Members may remember that there was a time when television was broadcast in analogue, and it was decided to switch off the analogue signal and move fully to digital. There was real concern about the consequences: blank screens would feature across the nation and reliance on the digital network was going to undermine the universality of the service. A lot of money and time was spent to meet that. Now, of course, nobody would ever suggest going back to analogue transmission of television.
Internet protocol television is growing. Obviously, take-up of streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney is possible only through smart television sets that are capable of receiving streaming services. As we know from Ofcom, more and more people are turning to those services. Four years ago, I purchased a Sky Glass TV. I think it is still the only television that has no digital terrestrial television receiver in it at all; it operates only on IPTV and, without wishing to give too much of a plug to Sky, it is very good. I think that is where we will eventually head. Switching off the DTT signal and moving purely to IPTV is, I think, inevitable, but it is a long way off. For that reason, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s initiative in starting the discussion publicly now.
There are benefits to switching off for consumers, and indeed for taxpayers. It opens up the possibility of using the existing DTT spectrum for something else. We can speculate about what that might be, but the spectrum is already under pressure from mobile services, the internet without things and all those things, so spectrum is a valuable commodity. It will save the broadcasters a bit of money, because at the moment they have to meet the cost of simulcasting on DTT and online. I think there will be advantages and, as Ofcom said, there will come a tipping point when it really becomes no longer economically viable to continue to maintain a DTT service.
The other reason why I think a switch-off is worth considering is the future of the BBC. Fewer and fewer people each year choose to pay the licence fee, and we need to look at alternatives. Lots of people say, “Well, in that case, why can’t we just operate like Netflix or Amazon and charge people?” The reason is that the BBC cannot, unless it has streamed services with conditional access that allows people to choose not to receive it. That is also an important part of the debate.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are real challenges. The cost has already been referred to. In government, I had responsibility for Project Gigabit—the Minister will be all too familiar with that—and the initiative to extend gigabit broadband coverage across the country. We still have some way to go. It would be unthinkable to turn off DTT before we reach the point at which gigabit broadband is universal.
In addition to reach, there is also the question of cost. We are reaching a moment at which it will be very difficult to operate without access to broadband because more and more services are going online. We need to look at all those issues before we decide to turn off. I personally think that the date that has been set as a guarantee for DTT continuing—2034—is about right. I would not want to go further than that; I am not saying that we should switch off in 2034, but it is still nine years away, and at that time the world may look very different. I think the moment will come when it clearly makes sense for broadcasting and for consumers that we move to pure internet protocol television.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for the opportunity to speak today about a matter of growing concern: the potential future switch-off of digital television broadcasting and what it means for millions of our citizens.
In an era of rapid change, it is easy to focus on innovation and overlook the basic systems that still serve as lifelines for many. Traditional scheduled TV is one of those systems. It is not flashy or new, but for a significant portion of our population it is essential. Digital broadcasting represents a lifeline of connectivity and inclusion, particularly for older and poorer individuals. These are often the people who do not have access to the latest smart devices or high-speed internet, or who may not feel comfortable navigating streaming platforms, apps or digital menus.
For many older people, especially those living alone, the television is not just entertainment; it is a companion. It is a reliable, familiar voice in the room, a source of news, information and even reassurance. It gives them access to the world outside their four walls, and that connection is something we should never take for granted. Data from the regulator predicts that up to 5% of the population may still be reliant on linear digital television into the 2030s, and I am certain that those people are likely to be the oldest and poorest in their communities. They may not be well represented in debates about media policy or digital inclusion, but they are in the millions, and they matter.
Many of those people live on limited incomes and cannot afford the devices, subscriptions and connectivity required for digital-only media. If we allow linear broadcasting to be switched off entirely in the 2030s, we risk creating a digital divide. We risk isolating those already most vulnerable to loneliness. We risk cutting people off from national news, emergency broadcasts, cultural programming and the simple companionship of shared live viewing experiences.
I understand the pressures from mobile operators to release parts of the digital spectrum that are currently reserved for TV broadcasting. To them, I say that digital transformation should never come at the cost of social inclusion. We must ensure that progress is inclusive, that innovation serves everyone and that we do not leave behind those who built the very society we now take for granted.
We must also consider the potential cost to consumers of such a switch-off. Many households will already be keenly aware of how the costs of multiple online streaming subscriptions can mount up. Our technology must change with the times, but we must ensure that no household is left behind in this process, and that changes to these vital services do not lead to a fragmented system of individual subscriptions to access each and every national broadcaster.
I call on the Government and broadcasters to resist pressure from mobile operators and the cost savings that an early switch-off might provide to broadcasters. For the time being, we must maintain linear digital broadcasting to ensure that nobody is left behind in the technological revolution we are all living through.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there is a guideline of four minutes for speeches.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) has set out, the future of terrestrial TV is uncertain once current licences expire in the 2030s. While some industry figureheads advocate for switch-off, I call on the UK Government to ensure that terrestrial TV retains its place as part of a hybrid approach that places the needs of our communities first, rather than business profits and that all-important bottom line. That is because switching to a digital-only model will not be easy for many people in our communities, including older people, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) said. In Wales, more than a fifth of our population is over 65. As it stands, 21% of those over 65 have no internet access at home, and 23% of Welsh homes rely solely on terrestrial to watch TV, lacking any other means to do so.
Let us not forget why people watch television in the first place. Beyond its importance in providing trusted news and information, 75% of people in the UK say that the availability of free-to-air terrestrial TV helps to reduce loneliness or isolation, which is a significant challenge in older, more rural areas such as my constituency. That rurality does make a difference. I was quite jealous when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) said that 99.3% of his area had digital; I think we are at 49% in my constituency.
According to Ofcom’s 2024 “Connected Nations” report, full-fibre broadband was available to 71% of all urban premises, but only 52% of rural premises and 48% of rural premises in Wales. As of January 2025, the figure is only 49% in Caerfyrddin. We do not have that digital connectivity, and many are unable to get decent broadband at all.
Storm Darragh at the end of last year made our vulnerability crystal clear, when 745,000 homes were impacted across south and west Wales. Thousands were without power and water for a whole week. Communication issues in the storm’s aftermath were particularly shocking. Constituents had difficulty using alerting systems and receiving news and information that would have historically been provided by local radio stations, since turned digital. That drilled home the importance of non-digital infrastructure when things go wrong, including critical national infrastructure such masts.
With numerous sites in Caerfyrddin alone, including Carmel, which serves 72,000 homes in my constituency, the terrestrial TV network has become a vital link for critical services such as emergency communications and utilities. The economic operational viability of this infrastructure should not be put at stake. Terrestrial TV should be made part of future emergency planning.
I reiterate the calls made in this debate and ask for the UK Government to provide concrete certainty for terrestrial TV beyond 2034. It is clear that a hybrid TV model remains the best option, and one that works for everybody.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate and giving Members the opportunity to highlight the continuing impact and importance of terrestrial television in the modern day.
While there is undoubtedly a growing reliance on digital television and streaming services, a significant number of people across the United Kingdom remain reliant on terrestrial television. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government plan to keep those people in mind when decisions are made in the coming months and years.
Earlier in the year, I had the opportunity, at the invitation of Arqiva, to visit the Black Hill transmitter station at Kirk o’ Shotts, near Salsburgh, a great industrial village in the Airdrie and Shotts constituency. To say I was impressed with the transmitter’s range of coverage, the number of people reliant on it and the skills on show by those who operate it would be an understatement. The Black Hill transmitter provides DTT coverage to approximately 940,000 households across the central Scotland region, serving Glasgow and Edinburgh and everything in between. It is an excellent resource that delivers a vital public service.
Indeed, according to Ofcom data from 2025, more than a quarter of Scots rely solely on terrestrial television, with no other means available to them. The figure goes as high as almost 50% in Northern Ireland. It is thought that across the United Kingdom there remains a socioeconomic aspect to this that Ministers will need to consider, with the percentage of those without access to the internet being over seven times as high in our most deprived areas than in our most affluent. Reliance on the internet in a world without terrestrial television would be hugely significant. We know that there are still gaps in progress, that almost one in five people uses the internet solely via a smartphone and that our elderly population, particularly in rural areas, feels digitally excluded. In the town of Shotts, the villages of Salsburgh and Harthill, and the villages that surround Airdrie, the elderly population in those villages still relies on terrestrial television for the news, weather and entertainment. Although I share the Government’s ambition for a modern, vibrant and digital society, I question whether a service with such significant reach and reliability needs to be taken away before the 2040s.
I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale for securing this debate and look forward to the Minister’s response. Terrestrial television has great value and impressive reach, and provides a safety net where there is a risk of gaps in internet provision. We can be a modern society that embraces technological advancement and change, while also protecting the sort of provision that has served and continues to serve us well.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Supporters of the switch-off argue that most homes will have gigabit broadband by the 2030s, but of course theoretical access does not guarantee adoption by households.
Around 13 million to 19 million adults are estimated to be living in digital poverty, and the switchover risks pushing more households into such poverty. We know that it is not just older people and people living in rural communities who do not have or will not be able to access digital television. We also know that one in five children is affected by digital poverty, which can have a huge impact on their educational outcomes. So I really am concerned that the proposed switch-off risks extending the digital divide, with unequal access to entertainment and educational resources, as well as to unbiased news.
We need to be clear about the cost of the switchover. Terrestrial television currently accounts for just 3% of the licence fee. By contrast, switching entirely to internet-only delivery could cost £2.1 billion up front and £1 billion annually. I want to ask the Minister who is fronting those costs. For the 4.3 million households who rely exclusively on terrestrial TV, it could mean an extra £218 per year simply to access content that today is free to air. All this comes at a time when one in four households already struggles to afford their communication services, and when millions have had to cancel broadband contracts to make ends meet during the cost of living crisis. Once again, the switchover has risks.
I think we can all agree that in the current world, terrestrial TV has an important role as a trusted source of information. Research shows that 96% of people trust the information that they receive on terrestrial TV. In this age of misinformation, that is not a luxury; it is a necessity in a healthy democracy and civic society. Broadcast television is a shared civic space where the nation comes together, whether it is for the coronation, the Olympics, the “Gavin and Stacey” finale or the women’s Euros, which reached more than 22 million on the BBC alone.
Terrestrial broadcasting is not just about culture. It underpins our critical national infrastructure, supporting radio, emergency alerts and communication during crises. Are we comfortable discarding such resilience in our world, which is sadly encountering growing global instability and increasing informational interference from hostile foreign Governments?
I am not arguing against digital innovation. Streaming offers flexibility and choice for those who can afford it, but it needs to complement, not replace, terrestrial broadcasting. That is why Ofcom has recommended a hybrid model combining digital, terrestrial and IPTV to give guaranteed universality and resilience. I ask the Minister: who will bear the burden of the annual cost of switching off terrestrial television? Will it be taxpayers, the vulnerable or both? How will the Government preserve emergency broadcasting if the network is dismantled? Does the Minister acknowledge that abandoning terrestrial TV risks widening the digital divide, raising household costs and potentially weakening our national resilience?
Terrestrial television remains one of the last universal and accessible public services, and we should not dismantle that before every household has a real, affordable alternative.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate. Early in my career, prior to my election here, I spent 15 years working at the BBC, so I remember well the UK digital-terrestrial switchover campaign that the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) referenced.
I want to make a couple of points about terrestrial television. It is not just about broadcast infrastructure, but much more. Terrestrial TV is about the scheduling of programming, content curation and providing a service that opens audiences to new experiences. It offers choices and access to material that viewers otherwise might not see. That can be much harder to achieve with streaming services because of the way the algorithm works, which encourages people to binge watch content similar to what they had been watching before. We can see some efforts by the public service broadcasters—PSBs—in their online offering to try to address and match the similarity of terrestrial television and its experience.
In conclusion, the future of terrestrial television is about much more than the delivery mechanism. It is important that we remember that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing today’s debate on this issue. It is right to start this conversation, which needs to be heard. I will follow what others who wish to see terrestrial TV retained have said—with one exception, but I do not think they are really against us. The future of TV is ever advancing, with countless new streaming services available each year, but it is important we remember the Freeview channels that are already available. Millions of people still take advantage of them on a daily basis.
Terrestrial television offers free access with no multi-subscription fees and wide channel availability for so many. For the United Kingdom, it also offers local and regional channels and homegrown programmes. I love the ones that they do back home because they go into some of the rural areas that people do not often hear about or see. I love those programmes. I understand “Mahon’s Way” is coming to Ballywalter, which we will get to explore. I want to see what he has got to say about it. When it comes to the local news headlines, it also requires no internet and no broadband, so it is an ideal option for low broadband areas.
There is no doubt that there is uncertainty over the future of the BBC. It is clear that more people are becoming opposed to the drastic TV licence payments. Perhaps the BBC could look at other Freeview channels that make money through advertising. That could give the likes of pensioners that little bit extra in their pocket.
There are millions of people across this United Kingdom who use streaming services such as Netflix, Disney Plus and Paramount+ to watch films and series, but I must admit that, in my home, it is my wife, my children and I suspect my grandchildren who have the knowledge of how it works. I could not say how it works at all. Maybe that is just me being old fashioned. Maybe I never caught up. Whatever the reason, I do not use them, even though everybody else does. I want to speak for those who do not and those who do not have that opportunity.
I know that there are many like me who take advantage of these TV services every day. My brother Keith had a serious road accident some 20 years ago, which left him with mental issues and unable to do things. The carers come in four times a day, and he has the ability to interact, but for him the TV is the No.1 subject matter in that house, because of his disabilities. It is so important not only to him but to other disabled people. For elderly and vulnerable people, if they did not have their TV—and let’s be honest, their wee dog or their cat—they probably would not have very much. The TV is so important, so I want to speak up for those in rural areas and communities and older viewers to ensure that public broadcasting remains as accessible as possible.
I note how much these main channels contribute to daily life. I often reflect on my family being glued to the news on the BBC or ITV, with news of the Queen and her passing or a royal wedding. Those channels are pillars, providing breakfast news, breaking news and news that is important to us, which not everyone has access to on social media. They should be protected and preserved to that extent.
Technological advancement is wonderful in society—so many take advantage of it—but we must not ever forget the services that are available to us on terrestrial TV. We must also protect that. I look to the Minister for a commitment to deliver just that.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I entirely agree that we must do all we can to protect digital terrestrial television for as long as it is needed. As a former radio presenter, I would argue that free radio could do with the same future protection. Colleagues have rightly made the case for the broadcasting medium; I want to make the case for the retailers, the engineers and the aerial installers—the people who deliver, set up and explain.
My family has been in that line of work for nearly a century. My brother Michael runs Radio Music Store in Bannockburn, helped by Pam and Logan. He took over from our father, who retired last year. My father took over from his father in the ’70s, and my grandfather started the business in 1932, five years after the first BBC radio broadcasts came to Scotland. The store rented out its first television set in time for the very first TV broadcast in Scotland in March 1952. It was 7.30 pm, and people crowded around small, low-resolution screens to watch pictures of this place—the Houses of Parliament—and the River Thames, which were the first things to be seen. Only 2,730 television licences had been issued in Scotland at the time.
By the 1980s, when I was a teenager helping out in the school holidays, televisions were everywhere. Rental remained popular because sets were costly and the analogue technology was forever blowing valves, tubes and circuits. But every town had engineers who could repair them. Most shops had backrooms that looked like laboratories, with people soldering components and bringing sets back to life. It was a skilled trade, common across the United Kingdom. Most of the businesses were small, family-run shops. Many were part of the Radio, Electrical and Television Retailers Association. Some were larger chains, but most were independents, rooted in their communities. Those communities were stronger for their presence.
Today it is a different picture. Fewer retailers cover larger areas. Many are part of Euronics, a co-operative of independent retailers, my brother’s store among them. They are still embedded in their towns, but fewer in number and serving much larger areas. It is one thing to support the continued broadcasting of terrestrial signals, but what use is that if people cannot get hold of a television? What use is that if nobody is available to realign their aerial after a winter storm? What use is that if manufacturers insist a new set cannot be set up without connecting it to the internet first?
My grandfather would have been horrified at how easily televisions worth hundreds of pounds are written off for want of a 50p fuse. Once upon a time, engineers repaired components. Now entire circuit boards are thrown away, as often are the televisions that they are in. Right-to-repair legislation has gone some way to address this, but where once we had a network of engineers in most towns making a living, now we have a handful of larger companies in urban areas and a patchwork of volunteer-run repair cafes. This is not just about nostalgia for a golden age of repair shops. It is about resilience. It is about making sure that older people, rural households and those without reliable broadband are not left behind. It is about ensuring that communities from Bannockburn to Bolton have someone nearby who can get them connected again when their set goes dark.
Yes, let us protect terrestrial television broadcasting. But let us also support the ecosystem that makes it receivable: the shops, the engineers, the local support and the skills. Let us recognise that broadcasting also means receiving, and there are a lot of people needed to ensure that reception continues. Finally, a plea: shop local when you can because, like so much of the high street, you will miss it most when you need it and it is not there.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Before we come to the Front Bench contributions, we are due to finish at 4.30 pm. While there has not been a Division called yet, there is the potential of up to three votes in the main Chamber. If that happens, I will have to suspend for the duration of those three votes. I point that out to the Front Bench spokespersons before they start their wind-up speeches.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate.
Who can forget the historic moments that we saw on terrestrial television? We watched the fall of the Berlin wall, and the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana. We watched Gazza’s tears. We watched the moon landings. And we watched Del Boy fall through the bar on “Only Fools and Horses”. Such history.
Terrestrial television is a technology that has changed our experience of the world around us in our own living rooms. That is something very special. Despite the pace of technological change, terrestrial television remains the window to the wider world for so many people. It is a means of staying connected to news and culture. It is companionship, particularly for those who live alone. At its best, television is a source of national unity, whether during a royal wedding or on those occasions when our national sports teams do well.
We must, therefore, ensure that Britain’s broadcasting infrastructure is fit for purpose. As things stand, that is not guaranteed for too many households after the switch-off. Around 17% of British households—nearly one in five—still rely on digital terrestrial television, known as Freeview. Those households are disproportionately on lower incomes and disproportionately live in the north of England, in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland—all nations and regions represented in this debate. They are more likely to be older, disabled, living alone and female. That sets the context for the challenge that faces us and the Government. These are the people who risk being left behind if Freeview disappears without a proper plan for what comes next.
Ofcom’s 2024 report on the future of Freeview found that fewer people are watching television via terrestrial platforms. That is no surprise: many of us now almost never switch on to watch shows as they are broadcast, favouring on demand services instead. That trend is expected to accelerate, and the threats to public service broadcasters from many manufacturers’ approach to prominence are now well known and discussed. However, the very same broadcasters that are worried about that also worry about the cost of maintaining distribution infrastructure—much of it, for terrestrial television, dating back decades. We worry that eventually they will conclude that the benefits are outweighed by the costs.
The Ofcom report sets out three broad choices for the Government: invest in a more efficient, leaner Freeview system; reduce Freeview to a smaller, core service; or prepare for a complete switch-off in the 2030s. Further Ofcom research found that fewer than a quarter of participants believed they would struggle if Freeview disappeared—but a quarter is one in four. Instead, the main challenges reported were the financial barriers that other Members have mentioned today, including the hundreds of extra pounds that people have to pay for a good internet connection; the fact that a good internet connection may not even be available in their area; unreliable internet that already exists; and technical difficulties, which are a barrier to older people.
Like any other sector, the television industry must adapt to new technologies. It is already doing so at some pace, and it should be applauded for that. It must also be placed on a sustainable financial footing. However, although the transition will inevitably run at pace, it cannot be allowed to leave the poorest and most vulnerable without a lifeline.
That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must set out a comprehensive plan that ensures that those who are most reliant on Freeview are not left behind. This is not a controversial viewpoint, and it is one that has been expressed by Members across the Chamber today. It means ensuring affordable and accessible alternatives for those who currently rely on Freeview, or an extension of Freeview itself. It means offering practical support to people who may struggle with digital technology. It also means investing in reliable broadband, so that rural and disadvantaged areas are not cut off.
Those steps would ensure that vulnerable people, particularly the elderly and those living alone, continue to have that window to the world, so that they can see the news and weather, watch chat shows and be entertained—perhaps with their dog or cat on their lap, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. These principles are best illustrated by the BBC’s founding mantra: to inform, educate and entertain. Those words must guide us still today, whether or not we like what the BBC does every day.
This debate is not only about profit and financial sustainability, but about the fabric of our society. Disinformation is a real threat to societal cohesion, as we saw last year with the riots in Southport and elsewhere. If barriers to access mean that television ceases to be a shared cultural space, we will all be the poorer for it, particularly if fewer people are able to access reliable news programmes on regulated public service broadcasters.
For British broadcasting to remain a source of connection and pride, as it is in this country, our Government—whichever party is in charge—must not leave households staring at a blank screen. We must invest in a fair transition that safeguards the vulnerable. Television has defined our culture for generations. With careful planning, proper investment and fairness at the heart of what we do, we can ensure a smooth transition that keeps the most vulnerable in our society connected.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I want to begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for bringing us this debate and for speaking so eloquently. It is always good to see colleagues from across the House, particularly my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), contributing to an important discussion like this one on the future of television.
Terrestrial television matters. For generations, it has been one of the few services in public life that, subject only to payment of a licence fee, is free, universal and trusted by the public. Beginning almost a century ago, programmes were broadcast via radio waves through local transmitters to household aerials. Here in Britain, the British Broadcasting Corporation—the BBC—launched regular television services in 1936. Independent Television, or ITV, followed in 1955, breaking the BBC’s monopoly. Channel 4 followed in 1982, as did Channel 5 in 1997.
The commercial sector too has enhanced the choice and diversity available to consumers in recent decades. For more than half a century, free-to-air channels have helped to shape our national culture and to inform our shared experiences. The digital switchover, completed in 2012, expanded choice and picture quality, with terrestrial television remaining a vital, universal service, trusted for news, public service broadcasting and live national moments.
With the simplest of aerials and without any subscription or broadband package, families can switch on their televisions and know that they will find news, culture, sport and drama of the highest quality. That civic reach, as we have heard in this debate, is available to 98.5% of households. The current guarantee, provided by the last Conservative Government, for terrestrial broadcasting runs into the early 2030s.
Decisions will soon need to be taken about what comes next, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale sought this debate. Ofcom and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering whether to maintain, reduce or phase out digital terrestrial television—DTT. These are weighty choices, which will have real consequences for households up and down the country.
It is true that viewing habits are changing, and changing rapidly. Already, most households combine terrestrial, satellite and online streaming. According to Ofcom, 94% of households have internet at home, and 85% use video on demand services. It is not just younger people; older people do so too, but younger people are certainly doing it in greater numbers, and they of course will carry forward their viewing habits into the future.
This debate is not about technology in the abstract; it is about people. If terrestrial television were to be withdrawn too hastily, it is clear who would be worst affected: older people who rely on accessible services they are used to; our rural communities; lower-income households, for whom streaming subscriptions are often a stretch too far; and people with certain disabilities who continue to depend on reliable and familiar formats. Those groups are not small in number; indeed, many such people live in my constituency on the east of the Isle of Wight. Those are good examples of groups that could struggle if this is done too early or in the wrong way.
Maintaining the current system for a declining audience will not come for free. There will almost certainly be a need to upgrade transmission equipment by 2034 if DTT continues beyond that date. It will come at a cost to public service broadcasters too, and they may not be willing to bear that indefinitely. Managing the transition into a world without DTT, if that becomes the Government’s final decision, would need very careful planning, communications and support. The successful digital switchover in 2012 demonstrated what can be achieved when change is handled carefully. It was gradual and well supported, and no household was left behind. That must remain the principle today: whatever the future holds, nobody should be excluded.
This debate is not about nostalgia for the past, but about fairness, resilience and continuity. It is about ensuring that the march of technology does not leave anyone behind, and about giving broadcasters and audiences alike the reassurance that free-to-air television, in whatever form it takes, will continue to serve the whole nation. I would also urge the Government and public service broadcasters to ensure that in the internet protocol television world, when it comes, their content is made as freely available as possible on as many platforms as possible. There should be no walled gardens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate on the future of terrestrial television. It is really welcome.
I will start by highlighting the important role that television still plays in our society. It is one of the most powerful and accessible ways to inform, entertain and bring people together across the UK. Whether they are global moments like the world cup and the Olympics, or the King’s speech on Christmas day—or indeed, as has been mentioned, “Gavin and Stacey” on Christmas day—or one of my favourite programmes, “Only Fools and Horses”, mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), these moments bring us together. They create shared cultural experiences. Television has the power to unite across generations, communities and nations.
I will of course address some of the points and questions put to me, but first I shall discuss some of the broad issues, and the action that the Government are currently taking. Public service broadcasters, commercial networks and independent producers all contribute to a rich, dynamic television ecosystem that is a huge source of national pride. Audiences can access world-class content that reflects our diverse society and upholds our democratic values. The system also underpins a thriving creative economy, generating thousands of jobs and driving innovation nationwide. It helps tell the story of the four corners of our United Kingdom, to ourselves and the world.
But the way we watch TV is changing rapidly. Over the past decade, we have seen significant shifts in how content is delivered and consumed. Increasing numbers of viewers are moving to internet-based platforms, both for on demand content and, increasingly, for live programming. That shift is being driven by viewers themselves. Ofcom data shows that over two thirds of UK households now use subscription video on demand services, which is a huge leap from just one in seven in 2014. However we access television in the future, it is clear that TV over the internet is increasingly playing a central role. As such developments gather pace, we must not lose sight of those who still rely on digital terrestrial television as their main way of watching TV. That is especially true for people without access to fast, reliable broadband, as has been discussed in this debate. That is why the DCMS is leading a major project on the future of TV distribution. As technology and viewing habits evolve, that project enables us to take clear evidence-based action with a strong commitment to universal TV access. I will outline the work of the forum in a moment.
Support for public service broadcasters is important as part of a diverse mix alongside commercial broadcasters and streamers. They must be able to innovate and thrive in a changing market. I heard that at first hand when I visited STV in Glasgow last week. I take this opportunity to acknowledge that ITV will turn 70 next week. I congratulate it on that anniversary. As media Minister, I have been pleased to work with and visit our PSBs including, of course, the BBC, S4C, Channel 4 and Channel 5.
Equally, infrastructure providers require certainty to make the long-term investments needed for digital terrestrial and internet TV. I heard that at first hand when I visited the Emley Moor mast with Arqiva a few years ago. It is a Yorkshire landmark just up the road from my Barnsley constituency.
As has been mentioned, DTT is guaranteed until at least 2034. Before making any decisions, we will carefully consider the challenges for public service broadcasters and, importantly, the impact on loyal daily viewers, especially those who rely on digital terrestrial services. Broadcasters want to focus their spending on content that truly reaches audiences. However, as digital terrestrial TV audiences fall, the cost per viewer rises, making it harder for channels, big or small, to sustain distribution.
I would like to directly address the issue put to me by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and others of why the Government do not simply commit to extending the licences past 2034. The cost of DTT to the PSBs is substantial. As fewer people rely on DTT, the cost per house is going up and will continue to do so. I am aware from my visits and meetings with providers that as part of the network reaches the end of life, investment would be needed to carry on even the current services. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), a former media Minister, referred to that tipping point. I say that while very clearly saying that no decisions have been made; these are complex issues.
We must ensure that the system remains viable so that audiences can continue to access a diverse and vibrant range of channels. Ofcom’s recent review of public service media made it clear: this is not just about how we watch TV; it is about the future of the UK’s cultural identity, creative economy and democratic life. That is why early strategic planning is essential and why DCMS has made that a priority. Of course, we need to bring that decision together with the BBC charter, ensuring that the BBC continues to provide universal services in a way that is sustainable for the long term.
TV distribution is a complex challenge with no easy answers. We are carefully assessing the costs and trade-offs of different distribution methods to make an informed, sustainable decision, ensuring that key stakeholders and robust evidence are involved in every step of the process. We also recognise that any decision on the future of TV distribution should encourage a competitive TV sector for public sector broadcasters and commercial channels and that the distribution method should, within reason, allow for any channel to be shown. There should not be an industry gatekeeper.
The Media Act 2024, which I and the right hon. Member for Maldon spent many hours in Committee discussing, was a major step forward. It ensures that public service broadcasters get the visibility they deserve on platforms via the internet, making it easier for audiences to find trusted, high-quality content in a crowded digital world.
I acknowledge the concerns about what a shift to internet-based TV might mean for audiences. I heard the issues and concerns that Members raised today. We know that there are groups of people who are more likely to be digitally excluded. They are often older, living in rural areas, more likely to be on lower incomes or living alone, or they may have a disability. Those are the people who rely most on television, not just for news and entertainment, but for connection and companionship.
Around 4.5 million households still face real barriers to accessing TV over the internet, whether due to a lack of broadband, unconnected TVs, or a preference for traditional linear viewing. To understand those challenges, we commissioned researchers who spoke directly with a representative range of viewers across demographic groups, from DTT-only users to hybrid users, who use both DTT and IPTV, and full internet TV adopters. Building on the University of Exeter’s research, this in-depth work shows that many are interested in IPTV once they understand it better, but concerns remain about cost, internet reliability and technical confidence, even among those with broadband. We are using those insights to understand how different groups are affected and to explore what the Government and industry can do to support fair and inclusive access to television.
Digital inclusion remains a top priority for the Government. It is essential for unlocking long-term economic growth and is being led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The DSIT-led Project Gigabit, the Government’s programme to enable hard-to-reach communities to access lightning-fast gigabit-capable broadband, is key to ensuring fair and inclusive access for all.
I want to answer some of the other points. Ofcom noted the importance of any decision, but it has not made a recommendation. It is part of our TV forum. DCMS is doing a full assessment of the costs of all the options, informed by our work with the stakeholder forum. We will publish that assessment when a decision is made.
Experts are at the centre of our work on the future of TV distribution. Our stakeholder forum brings together Ofcom, industry and audience representatives in a co-ordinated effort to explore the future of television delivery. It provides the space to identify challenges, discuss potential solutions and make real progress in shaping policy.
Running for at least 12 months, the forum meets quarterly, having already held four sessions with a final meeting planned for November. To support it, we have established three working groups, each focusing on a core part of the landscape: the TV sector, the infrastructure that underpins it, and the audience perspective. Together, these groups ensure that we are looking at the full picture—technical, commercial and, most importantly, viewers.
Membership spans the entire TV distribution ecosystem, from major broadcasters and infrastructure providers to trade bodies, advocacy groups and sector experts from across the UK. It includes organisations that represent people most likely to be unconnected or digitally excluded, such as the Digital Poverty Alliance, the Rural Services Network, Good Things Foundation and Silver Voices. This approach is producing a rich evidence base.
The forum plays a vital role in helping DCMS to test assumptions, understand practical implementation challenges and assess the technical feasibility of different approaches. It is not expected to reach a single view, but it will help to build consensus around the viable options and the evidence behind them before the Government make any decision. I am committed to transparency in this area: we will publish papers from this forum, set out clearly the evidence we have collected, and consult further ahead of any decision. Before any possible change, Parliament would be fully engaged and involved in any legislative process.
Let me close by reaffirming the Government’s strong commitment to a future for TV that is sustainable, innovative and inclusive; a future that supports our creative economy, protects access for every viewer, and encourages our broadcasters and platforms to keep creating world-class content for audiences here and around the world.
We also know this is not an easy decision. The choices ahead are complex and must be guided by evidence, and that is why we are taking the time to get them right, drawing on data, research and the views of people across the sector and across the country. We know this work cannot happen in isolation; it is a joint effort that requires extensive collaboration across Government, industry and audience groups—one that balances expertise and lived experience, that listens as much as it leads, and that keeps our clear commitment that no one gets left behind. As we look to the future, we must ensure that our television sector remains a cornerstone of British life: accessible to everyone, rich in diversity and confident in its place on the global stage.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
We are about to vote, so I would like to put the question as soon as we can, but it is up to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell).
David Mundell
I commit to concluding my remarks when the bell tolls.
I particularly thank the Minister for getting in a very full response before we have to conclude proceedings. It was very telling that when she read out the research that has been conducted, it was entirely in tune with what hon. Members had been saying throughout the debate—about the vulnerable, those who are remote and rural, and those who do not have good access to broadband.
While I would never want to characterise my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) as a member of the media elite, and I am sure that Sky Glass is an excellent product, I must point out that many of my constituents are unable, either practically or financially, to access it. That is very much what this debate is about: we have to focus on the people who are not in a position to do that.
The Minister can look back at the digital switchover, which was trialled in my own constituency a long time ago —the first switchover took place there. People who switched from analogue to digital were not then asked to pay a broadband subscription. The television service that they had was essentially changed, but they were not asked to pay anything for that to happen. Although the exercise was well managed, the analogy is not quite complete.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was actually the case that they were required to pay something. They had to purchase a set-top box, but the Government offered support to those who could not afford one. Perhaps that is an analogy we can follow in the future.
David Mundell
Well, we could go into the detail, because not everybody required a set-top box, but we are not going down that route. What we can agree is that, when that change was made, there was a huge intervention to allow it to take place smoothly.
I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) emphasised how much television helps wellbeing and reduces loneliness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) hit the nail on the head when she said that for many people, the television in the corner is a companion. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made very good points about the infrastructure behind television services and supporting local retailers.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) set out the practical issues in relation to the transmitter network. I have seen the transmitter in his constituency many times—it is often a beacon on a dark night in central Scotland—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to visit it. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) set out many of the same issues as I face in my large rural constituency. We must keep our focus on the people living in such areas.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) asked very clearly, “Who is going to pay for the switchover?” That, too, is very important. The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), bringing to bear his experience, made really important points, particularly about scheduling and all the things that terrestrial television brings as the core of the network.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Is the right hon. Member happy for me to put the Question, because a vote is about to be held?
David Mundell
Well, I would not want to leave without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his important contribution. Thank you, Mr Twigg.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.
Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The covid-19 pandemic impacted each and every person in the UK. The work of the UK covid-19 inquiry is crucial in examining the UK’s response to and impact of the covid-19 pandemic. There are evidently lessons to be learnt from the pandemic, and the Government are committed to closely considering the covid-19 inquiry’s findings and recommendations, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.
The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.
The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work, and she has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.
Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures and are not precise for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the UK covid inquiry are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of staff and costs
The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. These associated staff costs for Q1 2025-26 are below.
Q1 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 248 full-time equivalents
Q1 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,004,000 (including contingent labour costs)
Total inquiry response unit legal costs
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs (excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs) for Q1 2025-26 are below.
Q1 legal costs: £5,194,000
[HCWS909]
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Many children who have been adopted or are in kinship care have faced difficulties in their early life which mean they cannot live with their birth parents. These experiences place them at greater risk of serious mental health challenges compared to their peers. I am clear that the Government have a responsibility to those children and I am determined that we meet it.
To support these vulnerable children and their families, the adoption and special guardianship support fund provides funding to local authorities and regional adoption agencies for therapeutic services. This funding has so far helped over 54,000 children access the support they need, strengthened family relationships, and helped to prevent family breakdown.
Family security is a key priority for this Government in their mission to break down barriers to opportunity.
Therefore, I am pleased to confirm that applications to the ASGSF that run into the next financial year (2026-27) can now be made, as part of a further continuation of the scheme next financial year, of which full details will be set out shortly.
I hope today’s announcement offers families the clarity and reassurance they need to plan for their children’s ongoing support. I also trust it provides sector representatives with some reassurance to enable them to continue delivering services.
After a decade of support, we are also looking to review the delivery of the ASGSF to ensure we continue in the most effective and sustainable way. The need for support is clear, which is why we are determined to ensure that effective services are reaching children and families as efficiently as possible. Looking ahead, in the new year, the Department for Education will launch a public engagement process to better understand how well the fund is working, what the evidence tells us or what further evidence is required, and importantly what is working well for families and why.
My officials and I look forward to working collaboratively with children, families, and sector representatives placing the needs and voices of children at the heart of everything we do.
[HCWS908]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The right hon. Lord Jones of Penybont has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards).
The right hon. Baroness Coffey has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of Baroness Helic.
[HCWS910]
Immigration Rules Changes
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
The new rules provide for a temporary suspension of new applications for refugee family reunion, and for refugees to be covered in the meantime by the main family rules that apply for other UK residents and British citizens, with plans for new reformed arrangements to be put in place at a later date.
“Appendix Family Reunion”: suspension of new applications
The current rules for family reunion for refugees were designed many years ago to help families separated by war, conflict and persecution, but the way they are being used now has changed. Currently there are limited conditions on family reunion for refugee sponsors unlike those in place if the sponsor is a British citizen or settled in the UK. A refugee sponsor does not have to prove they can financially support or accommodate their family.
Before the pandemic, refugees who applied to bring family to the UK typically did so more than one or two years after they were granted protection—long enough for them to get jobs, find suitable housing and be able to provide their family with some support.
However, in recent years more of these applications are received shortly after they obtain protection. As a consequence, refugee families who arrive are more likely to seek homelessness assistance, which is adding unsustainable pressures on local authorities and associated public services.
We continue to believe that families staying together is important, but change is needed. The immigration White Paper sets out reforms to legal migration, so that we can restore order, control and fairness to the system, bring down net migration and promote economic growth.
In the immigration White Paper, we said that we will set out a new family policy before the end of this year, which will cover all UK residents including those who are British, settled, on work routes or those with protection status seeking to bring family members to the UK.
Noting the immediate pressures that result from family reunion particularly on public services and local authorities, we are introducing a temporary pause to “Appendix Family Reunion (Sponsors with Protection)”, as we undertake a full review and reform of the current family rules to ensure we have a fair and properly balanced system.
Changes to “Appendix FM” to allow applications from a partner and child of a person with protection status
“Appendix FM: family members” has been amended to allow applications from a partner and dependent child of a person with protection status in the UK while this pause is in place. In line with other applications under “Appendix FM”, a person will need to pay the fee—or obtain a fee waiver—and meet the core requirements of the route.
These changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 4 September 2025 and will come into effect at 15:00 on 4 September 2025.
[HCWS912]
Windsor Framework: Independent Review
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Following the outcome of the democratic consent vote which was held in the Assembly in December 2024, and in line with schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I commissioned the right hon. Lord Murphy of Torfaen to lead the independent review of the Windsor framework on 9 January 2025.
I can confirm that Lord Murphy provided me with a report of his conclusions on 9 July 2025, within the six month reporting period, and I am thankful for his diligent work on this matter. As per schedule 6A, I have today laid a copy of the report in Parliament, and transmitted a copy to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I understand that Members of both Houses and the Assembly contributed towards the independent review. I welcome their engagement on the issues and will take the time to carefully consider the recommendations made and the issues raised in the report.
For its part, the Government remain fully committed to securing the broadest possible confidence of communities in Northern Ireland in the trading arrangements that apply. Since the review was commissioned, we have continued working in this endeavour. This includes through the new arrangements to secure the long-term supply of human medicines, which we completed in January; the delivery of arrangements to support the smooth movement of freight and parcels in May; measures to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines, which we announced in June; and the launch that same month of a consultation on aligning rules on the labelling and packaging of chemicals across the UK, following concerns raised by Assembly Members in December 2024.
Following the UK/EU summit in May, the Government announced a new partnership with the EU. The new agreement we are taking forward on agrifood with the EU will be of considerable benefit to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, and further shows the capacity of our approach to deliver for them and to further strengthen the UK internal market.
In line with schedule 6A, I will publish a written response to the recommendations of the report within six months and bring them to the Joint Committee. I will update this House and provide a copy of the Government response when that is ready.
[HCWS907]
Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Iran: Government Response
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On 10 July 2025, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament published its report entitled “Iran”. I thank the Committee for the comprehensive report and the extensive work behind it.
Today, the Government are publishing their response to this report. This Government will take action wherever necessary to protect national security and the UK’s interests.
Together with our international partners, this Government are committed to addressing the full spectrum of the Iranian threat. We are clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon; that its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine must end; and that its destabilising influence across the region will be challenged. We have imposed further sanctions against individuals and entities linked to Iran—bringing the total to 450—to disrupt its malign activities and hold the regime to account. The UK, alongside France and Germany, has also triggered the “snapback” mechanism at the UN Security Council to reimpose proliferation-related sanctions and restrictions on Iran, in response to Iran’s serious nuclear escalation.
We are acting decisively to disrupt threats posed by Iran here in the UK. This includes placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to bolster our oversight of Iran’s activities. And following an independent review, we are working to develop a new state threats proscription-style tool, which will enable us to designate state-linked organisations that seek to do us harm.
I would also like to thank the intelligence and security agencies for their vital and relentless work to counter threats posed by states such as Iran. We will continue to prioritise the safety and security of UK citizens and interests, working swiftly and in partnership to confront all aspects of Iran’s hostile actions.
Copies of the Government response have been laid before both Houses.
[HCWS911]
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Trenchard
To ask His Majesty’s Government, given their intention to align dynamically with the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regime of the European Union, whether they intend to comply with Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership on SPS measures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK and the EU are working towards establishing a common sanitary and phytosanitary area that will remove trade barriers for areas within the scope of the agreement. The UK will not be rejoining the single market or customs union. Our focus will be to regulate consistently with the EU on specific rules in the scope of the CSPS area. We expect the agreement with the EU to be consistent with our international obligations, including those under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. We have entered negotiations with the European Union in full awareness of those international commitments.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply but I do not share her optimism that dynamic alignment with the EU’s SPS regime will be compatible with our membership of the CPTPP. The CPTPP’s processes depend on the assessment of equivalence, rather than alignment or harmonisation, between two party’s specific SPS measures. Our CPTPP partners are concerned about our proposed dynamic alignment under the European court for many reasons. For example, the EU’s GMO, gene editing and beef hormone bans are not based on sound science. The EU could put us in breach of the CPTPP’s SPS and TBT rules. A challenge would have to go through Brussels, but the EU is not a CPTPP member. Does the Minister not agree that we would do better to retain responsibility for our own rules and avoid the risk of protracted and expensive litigation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, quite rightly we have reset our relations with European partners to improve our diplomatic, economic and security co-operation following Brexit. We are now looking at the opportunities that can follow on from that. The discussions with the EU are at an early stage. We signed a common understanding in May this year, and there will be further negotiations that may lead to a new formal agreement in some of these areas. That may require primary legislation for domestic implementation of the agreements in the UK once finalised. Formal negotiations on the EU SPS agreement have not yet begun and we will set out further details, but we will, of course, make sure that anything we do will be consistent with our international obligations and other arrangements with trading partners.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the Opposition’s obsession with being isolated from the rest of Europe is very damaging to Britain and the industries?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I say, we see huge advantages to our reset with our European partners. The fact is that UK agri-food trade with the EU has, since 2018 to 2024, fallen by 21% for exports and 7% for imports. It is important that we re-establish those relationships so that our own trade can benefit from the new opportunities that we will have with the reset arrangements following that common understanding with the EU.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for causing the Minister to put her trade hat on. It is good to discuss trade. The Financial Times recently reported an influx of Australian steak, which is undercutting British beef. Does the Minister agree with what the Liberal Democrats said at the time: that the Australian FTA, which was made in haste by the Conservative Government of the time, sells out British farmers? What will her Government do to try to protect them from this problem?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we remain committed to our high agriculture and food standards. As the Trade and Agriculture Commission report has confirmed, all food and drink products imported into the UK will still have to meet our existing import, food safety and biosecurity requirements. We have not lowered our standards to join the CPTPP. For example, hormone-treated beef and ractopamine—I knew I would fall when attempting to pronounce that—pork remain banned in the UK, as will other products affected by pesticides. We will maintain our existing food standards.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
We will hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, since we are a member of the CPTPP, can the Minister tell us whether any of the other members of that organisation have raised this problem with us and said there will be any incompatibility? After all, our intention to sign an SPS agreement with the EU is a matter of common knowledge.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, these issues are, as ever, discussed at the CPTPP ministerial meetings. We have assured all those partners that we will maintain our existing agricultural standards, as I have confirmed.
Lord Jack of Courance (Con)
My Lords, our membership of CPTPP is facilitated by our ownership of the Pitcairn Islands. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government are not planning to give that island away as well?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will try to avoid long acronyms in my question. We had the negotiation back in May for the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Nothing has happened yet. My colleagues in the inshore fishing sector in the south-west of England want to understand whether they will be able to export to Europe in the way that they used to, without all the red tape and bureaucracy they have had since Brexit.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I have said, the discussions are only just beginning, and we will set out more details, including with respect to our other trade obligations. I assure the noble Lord that we will do everything we can to remove a lot of the red tape that was introduced, quite unnecessarily, when we left the European Union.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, on 27 August, the responsible Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said that any disputes under the SPS agreement
“go to international arbitration, not the European Court of Justice”.
However, the Commission’s negotiating mandate, agreed in July, says that the SPS agreement is based on EU law and
“should ensure uniform interpretation and application”
of EU law, and that
“the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law”.
Can the Minister explain how those two statements can be reconciled?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have not seen that piece of advice. I assure noble Lords that, as those discussions continue, we will continue to keep Parliament updated, no doubt in your Lordships’ Chamber as well as through our standing parliamentary committees.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the value of goods exported by the EU to us that will be relieved of any liability to SPS checks is five times the value of the goods that we export to the EU? So this deal is five times as valuable to the EU as it is to us. I have no objection to being generous to the EU, since I am a French farmer myself, but was it necessary to pay for the privilege of being generous by also giving away 12 years of our right to enhance our rights over fishing in UK waters, and to agree that we would pay for the privilege of implementing this deal and give up sovereignty over our right to control our SPS rules over the rest of the world?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We will maintain our SPS standards, as I have consistently said. I remind noble Lords that the EU remains the UK’s largest trading partner for agri-food and vice versa, so there are huge benefits in maintaining or re-establishing a lot of those European trading partners, which will benefit our farmers and consumers as well.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will develop a theme that was started by my noble friend in his supplementary question. Given that the UK is ahead of the EU in developing a proportionate regulatory framework for gene editing and that the sector has attracted significant inward investment positioning Britain as a potential global leader, will the Minister confirm that an exemption will be secured for gene editing in any SPS agreement?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That issue will be discussed as part of these agreements; it is not specific to the discussions that we are having at the moment. I remind noble Lords that we see ourselves as a global trading partner: the fact that we already have deals with India and the US and are now developing them with the EU will ensure that we can provide food on a cheaper basis for consumers while maintaining our own established food standards. That is the way that we should go in the future.
UK Defence and Aerospace Facilities: Protests
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Austin of Dudley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of protest movements targeting UK defence and aerospace facilities and exports, on the UK’s security and economy, and the supply chains and reputation of the defence industry abroad.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence tracks risks to the defence sector as part of its routine monitoring of supply chain resilience. Some UK defence companies have faced costs and disruption due to criminal damage and staff intimidation by groups such as Palestine Action. We are working with the police to address those offences and mitigate future risks. Although individual businesses have been affected, the overall impact on defence has been limited, with no significant effects reported on the defence supply chain or the reputation of our world-leading defence industry.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the defence industry is vital to our national security and our economy, not least when we must do more to increase support for Ukraine. It provides thousands of highly skilled and well-paid jobs. We have to stand up for it and support it and the people who work in the industry. It is not just buildings and equipment that have been attacked; workers have been intimidated and police officers have been injured as extremist groups have smashed their way into factories. This is not peaceful protest; it is a violent national campaign. Will the Government put in place a robust strategy to support the defence sector and get the people responsible for those attacks before the courts more quickly, as they were able to do with other examples of public disorder?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really important point. Let us use this opportunity to state that it is totally unacceptable for people to act as they have. There is legitimate protest, which this country is proud to facilitate, but we will not allow our bases to be broken into, people to be intimidated and protests to stray into the realms of illegality and violence. None of us in this Chamber would accept that. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action and why we see people before the courts. We work strongly with the Home Office, the police and others to ensure that those who think that they can do that will face the full force of the law.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the activity to which the noble Lord, Lord Austin, rightly refers is de facto sabotage of our critical defence capability. In Napoleonic times, setting fire to a naval dockyard was construed as such and punishable by death, which was abolished only by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Does the Minister agree that any sabotage activity of the type described is profoundly serious, and is he satisfied that the criminal law is adequate to deal with the appropriate charge and penalty in such grave circumstances?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I know that the British media are always concerned with accuracy, so let me start my remarks by saying that, whatever I say now, we have no intention of restoring the death penalty—let us get that out of the way first; whatever review may or may not take place, that is not on the table. The noble Baroness who speaks for the Opposition makes an important point. This is a very serious matter. That is why we have proscribed Palestine Action. That is why we will take the action necessary to protect our defence industry and to stop intimidation and do all we can to support our world-leading industry. We will always continue to discuss with our Home Office colleagues and with others across government whether more needs to be done. Let us be clear: there is legitimate protest, which is perfectly acceptable, but some of the things that have gone on are totally unacceptable.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, there seems to be an issue with public opinion at present about a failure to understand the importance of defence. Recent polling has suggested that many people of service age would not be willing to fight for our country. What are the Government doing to engage in the national conversation that the strategic review said was necessary to help people understand the importance of defence to our country and that any attack on the defence sector is also an attack on our own resilience?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point and, by asking the question, she starts to raise the conversation that we need to have as politicians about having more confidence to speak to the British public about why, as a country, we do the things that we do—and why it is extremely important that we do them. On a practical level, to make that rhetoric a reality, one thing that we are doing is to talk about the need for national resilience, the importance of protecting our critical national infrastructure and the importance of the reserves as well as the full-time personnel. The noble Baroness, who follows these matters closely, will also have seen the massive expansion that we are bringing to the cadet organisation in this country, which I think will help to make a very real difference.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, it is welcome to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the defence industry. Does he share my view that it is completely unacceptable for anyone who says that they support working people in industrial settings and, most of all, those who claim to represent working people to seek to excuse and underplay the level of intimidation and fear caused to workers in defence factories, who have been terrorised for many years? Those people who defend that should have no place in the Labour movement. Is that not right?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I know the point that the noble Lord is making, but the general point is that nobody should face intimidation for going to work. That is a completely unacceptable way of behaving. The noble Lord has done a lot of work in this area and has defended the right to protest and the right for people to make their views known, but to do so in a way that is acceptable and according to the law. It does not matter what hat people have on when they speak about this; we all need to encourage people to behave appropriately and properly when it comes to protest.
Lord McCabe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that smaller suppliers, essential to our defence, often lack the resources to withstand sustained intimidation and sabotage? Will the Government provide targeted support against extremists to ensure that those companies can continue to deliver critical components to our Armed Forces and maintain Britain’s reputation as a reliable defence partner?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Obviously, the deployment of police resources is a matter of operational independence for the police, but my noble friend makes the important point that, whether it is a large business, a small business, an international business or a business located in a small rural area, they all deserve protection, whether they are the workers or the business overall. The important point of principle is that we are proud of our defence industry and, whether they are small, medium or big businesses, we will support them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, have the Government made an assessment of the impact on the UK’s reputation of not imposing sanctions on arms deals with Israel when the Palestinian people are facing genocide?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is an example of what I have been saying: the noble Baroness, in terms of freedom of speech, has been able to get up and say something in this Parliament about Palestine—this is something that we should point out—and to challenge the Government on what they have done with respect to this in an appropriate and proper way, as she always does.
The noble Baroness knows that the Government have made comment about the need for an immediate ceasefire, the release of the hostages and all the things that the Foreign Secretary made a Statement about just a few days ago and has continuously made Statements about. She has also heard what the Prime Minister has said with respect to the recognition of Palestine unless Israel meets certain conditions. She will also know that, last September, the Government changed the export rules so that we stopped exporting arms to Israel that were going to be used with respect to Gaza. I know that the noble Baroness does not think that goes far enough, but the Government have taken proportionate and reasonable action to say to Israel that this is what we think is acceptable and to stand up for that while we also pursue the two-state solution that we all want.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister explain how a relatively unsophisticated attack was able to put out of action an RAF aircraft?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have sought to explain that. We have said that the security in place at that time at Brize Norton was not good enough. The noble Earl will have seen that since that incident we have been looking at what we do to improve and enhance security in the short term in our military bases, and in the longer term. The point that needs to be reiterated is that the people at fault are those who thought an acceptable way to protest was to break in—whatever the rights and wrongs of how they were able to do that. We all agree that it was unacceptable that they could do that. Why on earth do some people think it is acceptable to break into an RAF base and put at risk this country’s national security? It is not, and I am glad that through the proper processes people have been charged and we will see what the outcome of that legal process is.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the criminal penalties for violence and intimidation are perfectly adequate; what is necessary is for the police to identify the ringleaders and the perpetrators quickly, for the prosecutions to be brought to court without delay and for the courts to impose severe sanctions that deter those people?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord provides my answer in the point he makes in the question. Of course, that is the right thing to do. Through the appropriate legal processes established in this country, in a democracy, the police investigate according to the priorities they set, and we see this as a very real priority. An investigation is held and if the police have the evidence and believe that the charging threshold is met, they will charge and then it is for the courts to determine guilt or not. The court will then put in place the appropriate punishment. That is the division of responsibility in this country. That is what we are standing up for in Ukraine and across the world and, going back to the noble Baroness’s point about young people or others and fighting for our country, I think democracy, freedom and the rule of law are pretty good things to fight for. They are not bad things to stand up for.
European Framework Programme 10
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the draft European Framework Programme 10 on research and innovation.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, I am returning to the subject of my first ever Parliamentary Question.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
We welcome the initial proposals for the EU FP 10. We identify strong alignment between the proposals and our own focus on using research and innovation to drive economic growth. We are particularly looking at how the proposals align with the principles of excellence, openness and good value for money. I was pleased recently to have been welcomed by the informal meeting of EU Research and Innovation Ministers in July, when these proposals on the future of European research and innovation were discussed.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am pleased to see things are going in the right direction, first, because scientific excellence and value for money remain at the heart of the Horizon Europe programme and, secondly, because academic participation rates have risen so much since we rejoined. What is the position for industry? Can my noble friend tell the House anything about the discussion he referred to with counterparts on the future of FP 10 and its ambitious budget? Is it the case that the United Kingdom will no longer be excluded totally from the areas of quantum and space? Finally, would he agree that, with China in the ascendent and the United States damaging itself scientifically, it is all the more vital for our future prosperity that the UK co-operates with European countries in science?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am very happy to answer my noble friend’s four questions. In terms of industry, we do not have as good an uptake yet. Academia has increased the uptake of EU grants very successfully and in Pillar 1, which is largely the academic pillar, in 2024, over 13% of the money came back. In the European Research Council awards, 56 were won, which was more than any other country in Europe. We are fully back there, but not so in industry where it is still slow. I think it is really important that we get the message out that this money is there for industry to apply for. It lost a lot of confidence when we left the programme, and we need to get the confidence back because of the reasons stated—we need to be fully part of the system. We are now able to do much more in both space and quantum that we were initially excluded from.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, there have been a number of calls from research and university representatives for the programme to take a balanced approach to research security but also to reduce bureaucracy. Can the Minister please say how he will evaluate and negotiate on FP 10’s provisions for ethical research but also on derisking investments so that we can ensure that they align with UK priorities but do not increase additional barriers or financial strains?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, the FP 10 negotiations have not really started yet; it is just a discussion of what this might be. We are going to look very carefully at the principles of openness, excellence and value for money. We will also look at accessibility: we want to be a part of all the programme, not excluded from areas to do with military and defence. We are now included in some of those; we would like to be fully included as we increase the relationship. We are very keen to make sure, as we look at all of this, that we have transparency on the finances and value for money.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister one broad question? Would the Government, in assessing FP 10, take into consideration the success in research that British universities have had since we joined, even recently, the Horizon programme? For example, Imperial College has a direct grant of about £180 million and broader involvement leading up to, over several years, several billion pounds. The draft programme is much aligned to our own strategy. Therefore, I hope the Government will seriously take into account the success we have had and may continue to have if we join the FP 10.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. Our ability to get money through this scheme is a great success story. We are back to nearly full strength in terms of the academic side of that. Just to give some figures, in the past scheme, the University of Cambridge had £70 million and the University of Oxford £67 million. We have a large number of grants through this scheme. It is a very important part of the system, and we need to look at this in conjunction with UKRI funding to look at the totality of how we think about spread across all disciplines. I think this is a very important part of our funding system and, provided it is open, excellent and value for money, we will negotiate to try and be part of FP 10.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, can I press the Minister on timelines? He will be aware that universities are advocating for early clarity as regards the Government’s timeline for declaring their intent to associate with FP 10. Will this declaration be made early enough to influence the programme’s final design and ensure UK participation from day one? Given that multiple departments are involved, can the Minister clarify which Minister has overall responsibility and how interdepartmental co-ordination is being managed?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We have got the money for the first two years of the programme in the spending review so, assuming that we associate, the money is there for those first two years, which covers the period of the spending review. The timelines for FP10 are in the hands of the EU, which has not yet defined what the programme is. As I have already said, I was invited to a meeting in July, so we are engaged with the process. I will continue to be engaged with it and work across other departments to make sure we represent every department. But I cannot give any more timelines, because the EU has not given its timelines yet.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s comments about Horizon and the greater involvement in space. Can he confirm what progress has been made on the UK rejoining EGNOS, which basically is the European navigation system for flying small planes in very bad conditions? We were a member and then, of course, we were kicked out because of Brexit.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am going to have to get somebody else to answer that question in writing, I am afraid, because I do not know the answer.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I think we would all agree that the UK has most of the leading universities and institutions in Europe. The result, as the Minister said, is that historically we punched well above our weight in this area. We contributed only 12% of the funds and received 14% to 15% of the funds back; now, in the latest round, we are still contributing 12% and receiving only around 10% to 11%, so we are now punching well below our weight. What can we do to address this now and in future rounds to make sure that our universities are not losing out?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I have said, we are actually above 13% for Pillar 1 in the university sector and we are increasing again. We took a big hit when we left—a very big hit—and it is taking a while to come back. We are now on track and doing better in increasing our share than any other nation in Europe. The biggest area on which to concentrate is the industry side. Industry took a big hit because of loss of confidence when we removed from the system, and that is going to take a little longer to come back.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in relation to industry, in the Minister’s first substantive Answer, he said that industry did not have the same percentage as academia. How can Government work with both industry and academia to forge closer collaborations so that they can partake of this investment, particularly when it is industry that usually identifies the difficulties that have to be solved and academia then comes up with the solutions?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I wrote to vice-chancellors to encourage them to make sure they apply to get into all of the scheme, and that had an effect on applications. I am doing the same with trade bodies and other parts of industry to get them linked. The general point about links between academia and industry is crucial; we need much closer collaboration. The noble Baroness will see, as we go through our next REF exercise to assess universities, that the links to industry are going to be a very important part of that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare I am a professor at Cardiff University. Can the Minister explain how there is co-ordination between the devolved Administrations? In terms of which Ministers and departments are involved, as mentioned in a previous question, I want to know how the co-ordination is happening to ensure that all universities across the whole of the UK find that there are consistent messages and have the appropriate support towards applying into the grant programmes.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I have regular meetings with Ministers from the devolved Administrations. Most recently, they were around some of the issues to do with REF. Unfortunately, the meeting with the Welsh Minister was cancelled twice by them, but I will none the less persist.
Refugee Accommodation: Move-on Period
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risks to social cohesion and the pressures on local councils and homelessness services presented by the recent decision to reduce the “move-on” period that newly recognised refugees are granted to find new accommodation to 28 days.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a patron of ASSIST Sheffield, a wonderful charity that seeks to support asylum seekers and refugees in our city of sanctuary.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Home Office monitors the impact of all its policies, especially move-on and the impact on wider communities and local authorities. We are committed to working closely with our partners to identify improvements and make efficiencies in supporting newly recognised refugees who move on from asylum accommodation.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for his response, although my concerns are not entirely allayed. It is important to remember that those affected by move-on period policies have already been formally recognised by government as refugees, with rights to protection that are enshrined in international law. First, given the success of the recent 56-day extension, as reported by local authorities and numerous organisations supporting refugees, what impact assessment was undertaken in commending a reversion to 28 days? Secondly, what metric will His Majesty’s Government use to measure the success of this reversion? Finally, will the Minister commit to update the House within six months on the impact of this change?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I can assist the right reverend Prelate with some clarification on what has actually happened. First, nobody who is in the system as of 1 September will have their 56-day period changed; that will still be operational. The pilot we are undertaking runs until December this year, and we will fully evaluate the pilot accordingly. Those individuals affected by the announcement on 27 August, who will change from 56 days to 28 days from 1 September, are single applicants; no families, nobody over 65 and nobody with disabilities will be impacted. We are trying to help tackle the longer-term asylum accommodation problem, but the pilot on 56 days to which the right reverend Prelate refers is continuing, and we will evaluate it and report back in due course. We have tweaked the pilot—we have not ended it—so we will continue to monitor the impact assessment issues. There will be full accountability on the outcome of the pilot when it is completed in December, but the majority of individuals to date will not be impacted by the change.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the arguments given last year for the 28-day/56-day pilot are the same as those given currently. In the Statements given to this House at the time, it was quite clear that this pilot was until the end of July and would be evaluated and the results published by the end of the summer. We are bound to suspect that, in moving as quickly as the Government have now done in shifting people from hotels into the hands of local government so swiftly, they will meet with the same problem of more homelessness that we had last year. Can the Minister confirm that the assessment so far has found a reduction in homelessness, and will he publish the interim evaluation promised to this House last year?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I repeat what I said to the right reverend Prelate: we are running the pilot until December and it will be evaluated. We have made some changes from 1 September, but not for the vast majority of people in the system—they will still be eligible for 56 days. Families, over-65s and those with disabilities will not be affected; it is single applicants who will be affected from 1 September. As this House continues to press the Government on, we need to reduce the reliance on hotels and provide a move-on period. The objective of the actions we have taken now is to relieve some of those pressures on hotel and asylum accommodation.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, how are the Government working with places of worship to see how they could help alleviate some of the hotel usage problem? There are thousands of places of worship across our country; they should be playing their part. They are often large buildings with catering kitchens and everything else. It is about time we rethink how we look after people who come in but maybe should not be here and, in the meantime, utilise places of worship. They are often left empty and could probably do with a little financial assistance from the Government—but much less than hotels.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion; I will certainly examine it. It is important that society as a whole embraces individuals who have come to this country fleeing persecution, hunger, war and destitution.
For those who are not across the detail of this proposal, it is about individuals who have been granted asylum and who are being helped to move on from that into the community to begin their new life with approved asylum status. We are trying to ensure that we evaluate that pilot, monitor it successfully and give due regard to those who are already under the 56-day period, but to look at what tweaks we can make, because there are immense pressures in the system on hotels and the whole House wants us to resolve that as a matter of urgency.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Home Office has reported that in some cases, when the 56 days expire, asylum seekers are simply refusing to leave the hotel. What are the consequences for them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. For individuals who have been granted asylum, under the pilot we have extended the period from 28 days to 56 days to ensure that transition takes place. We are now tweaking that for certain categories of individual applicants back to 28 days. In a sense, the noble Lord hits a very important point: the asylum claim has been approved, and the period—be it 28 or 56 days—is there for that transition. At the end of that period, the Government have fulfilled their responsibilities in the asylum claim approval and the hand-on period. Therefore, we need to ensure that individuals then begin their new life under their own steam.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, throughout the summer we all witnessed a number of protests relating to asylum accommodation, suggesting that social cohesion in certain areas is under severe pressure. Does the Minister recognise the challenges faced by local authorities and local residents’ frustration, given that the number of asylum seekers temporarily housed in hotels has increased by 8% since the end of June 2024?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I always find it fascinating that the Opposition continue to raise these questions with the Government, because if I wind the clock back to 2016, there were no hotels in use for asylum accommodation. Asylum claims rose dramatically under the previous Government and only a couple of years ago asylum hotels reached a peak of over 400, which is starting to fall now. We inherited that massive number and are trying to deal with that backlog of asylum claims, and the asylum issue as a whole, in a proper and effective way.
For me, community cohesion means the best way to deal with that is to speed up asylum claims, to ensure we close those hotels as a matter of some urgency and to determine who has the right to asylum in this country. We then give them a 56 or 28-day period of settlement and remove those individuals who have no right to reside in this country, their asylum claim having failed. With due respect to the noble Lord, the previous Government failed miserably on all those things. We are trying to do them.
People have a right to protest. But people also have a right to understand why and how we are dealing with this issue and what we are doing to resolve it to maintain community cohesion so that people welcome those who are fleeing persecution, war, starvation and the other forms of economic misery driving them to seek asylum in Europe and this country.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Minister, when he refers to hotels, that in the last nine months of the last Government we halved the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers. That fall came to a grinding halt when the present Government came to power.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Young, because I do not think he answered it. My noble friend asked what the consequences are, for those granted refugee status in asylum accommodation who fail to leave when they are supposed to, of their failure to leave that accommodation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect, I thought I did try to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Young. Heads are shaking, but I am accountable for my answers. At the end of that 28 or 56-day period, individuals will have to leave that accommodation. That is a consequence for them. We have given support, determined their asylum application and given a transition period, and then that asylum claim has been approved so people need to move on.
I will challenge the noble Lord back. At the peak in 2018, under his Government, there were 400-plus hotels in use, reduced to 210 now. In the past year we have saved £1 billion of taxpayers’ money, over and above what the previous Government—the noble Lord sat in the Cabinet—expended. That £1 billion is better spent on speeding up asylum claims and making sure we determine them as a matter of some urgency.
Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, there is never a more solemn occasion in this Chamber, in my mind, than when we discuss the issue of child grooming gangs. Noble Lords are all aware of the utterly horrendous nature of the abuse that was—and still is—being perpetrated. For that reason, as ever, these Benches are immensely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for all the work she has done in this area, although we regret the delays in publishing the Casey review earlier this year.
I start by welcoming the action that the Government have taken so far. We are pleased that they have continued the grooming gangs taskforce, which in its first year of operation arrested over 550 people. The establishment of Operation Beaconport is also a welcome move. I am sure that we all hope that this joined-up approach will deliver real results and give victims the justice they deserve.
As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said on 18 June, we on these Benches are pleased that the Government have announced that they would finally launch a full, statutory national inquiry into these vile grooming gangs. There were many calls, including in this Chamber, for such an inquiry, and it was highly unfortunate that it took the Government so long to agree to this, but they have finally come to their senses. However, we have heard in this Statement that not quite as much progress has been made as one would have hoped. On 18 June, the Minister when asked about timelines said
“we will be bringing that forward at an early opportunity; we have to appoint a chair and set terms of reference”.—[Official Report, 18/6/25; col. 2087.]
The inquiry was announced over two months ago now, yet the Minister for Safeguarding in this Statement has confirmed that they have not yet appointed a chair nor agreed the terms of reference. We appreciate that the Home Office is in the final stages of the appointment process, but might the Minister be able to give us a date? Surely the department knows when it will announce this appointment.
Given the amount of time that has transpired between when many of these crimes were committed and now, it is absolutely vital that the next stages are completed at pace. Not only should the chair be appointed imminently, but the terms of reference should also be speedily nailed down and the start date for the inquiry announced as soon as possible after that.
While the inquiry is being established, we must ensure that the police and Home Office continue to do everything in their power to investigate historical cases, identify current perpetrators and prosecute anyone involved. I stress to the Minister how important it is that justice does not wait for the results of the inquiry. We know that such an inquiry will probably take between two to three years. Obviously, there is much ground to cover, and it must be thorough and rigorous, but in the meantime, there are people who simply cannot wait.
In the light of this, can the Minister tell the House when the Government will publish their violence against women and girls strategy? How will the Government ensure that this strategy is not merely warm words but contains actionable plans that can be delivered upon, and will it include tough measures relating to the victims of the grooming gang scandal? We all owe it to those survivors to end their nightmare swiftly.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the update as promised to Parliament earlier in the year—it is refreshing and a sign of how seriously this Government are taking group-based child sexual exploitation. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her excellent work.
I start by thanking the whistleblowers and victims, who are still speaking up about this. The speed and success of the actions forecast in this Statement will be judged to have satisfied their demands for justice, and should change policing forever, so that we never end up in this position again.
The national inquiry and national police operation must not just be survivor-centred but must always check back with survivors about process. On many, many occasions, your Lordships’ House has highlighted other victims of appalling circumstances, inquiries and compensation schemes, where the Government of the day paid the right lip service but the reality has left those survivors getting caught up in the bureaucracy that definitely is not survivor-centred. I think particularly of the Hillsborough tragedy, the Manchester bombings and the Windrush scandal, as well as the scandals of infected blood, the Grenfell Tower fire and the Horizon postmasters.
The update on the national police operation is encouraging, but there seems to be one glaring hole: all the detail is about training senior and specialist staff. There is no mention of the front-line staff, including control or police officers on the beat. Their lack of training in years gone by meant that the police missed the obvious first signs and ignored whistleblowers. This has also been a problem in other areas, such as in recognising stalking and domestic abuse. Can the Minister say what is planned for those on the front line, because, without their involvement, cases may not even make it to the high level specialist units?
The update on the Tackling Organised Exploitation programme—TOEX—is also helpful, including the details of the rollout. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches understand that things cannot change overnight, but can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when every police force will be TOEX trained and funded?
I will briefly make two other points. It is good to see the commitment to improving ethnicity data. The Statement says that this will be used for all cases with child sexual exploitation suspects, but is that not too late as well? Data needs to be consistently collected across the board. We therefore welcome the inquiry considering the intersection with ethnicity, race and culture, as well as safeguarding.
Finally, while it is right that the focus of this Statement is on the horrific gang-based child sexual abuse, as the Minister knows, the vast majority of child sexual abuse is hidden from view. NSPCC data estimates that one in 20 children face child sexual abuse, accounting for probably close to 90% of child sexual abuse across the board. The average age of a victim finally finding the courage to volunteer information about what happened to them is, shockingly, about 20 years after the event. What will the Government do to ensure that all adults—parents, teachers and especially doctors—are able to identify the signs early on and report it, so that this serious scourge can be reduced too?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the questions, and the broad welcome for our measures, from both His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I too echo the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for her work and focus on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, rightly pressed me on the final stages of the appointment of the chair of the inquiry. I reassurance him that we are working at pace to do that. He knows that it took two years to get Alexis Jay into post. We are trying to do this as a matter of urgency. We want to make sure that the victims and survivors are consulted, and we are undertaking formal measures, as is outlined in the Statement, to ensure that they are involved in the process. That is similarly the case for the terms of reference. I am hopeful that we will be able to bring forward proposals to both Houses of Parliament, in relatively short order, to finalise those issues. It is the Government’s intention to establish the inquiry as a matter of urgency.
I cannot give the noble Lord too much detail today on the violence against women and girls strategy, because that will be developed and then announced and put before both Houses of Parliament in due course. I assure him that tackling violence against women and girls is a key manifesto commitment, as is the strategy. The Minister responsible directly in the Home Office, my honourable friend Jess Phillips, has a very keen interest in making sure that the strategy has a real impact on violence against women and girls. I expect to make a Statement in this House, alongside the Minister in the Commons, at some point in the relatively near future.
It is also important that the noble Lord noted—this also goes to one of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—that Operation Beaconport, which we announced today, has reopened an additional 1,273 cases to be reviewed now. Some 216 priority cases of historical abuse are being reviewed. As the Statement outlines, we are bringing together partners and police under the National Crime Agency to look at these issues and to put some energy into this. That will be trialled later this month, with further announcements, I hope, from the National Crime Agency and policing partners on how they will deal with those issues on the ground.
I think that partly answers a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but we also have the great involvement of victims and survivors. We need to look at the training issues that she mentioned, and the policing partners will review that in due course. The ethnicity data is extremely important and, as the Statement outlines, we are trying to move that forward at pace. Between that and the extra resource we have announced this week of more than £400,000, on top of the money already allocated, we have a reasonable initiative with which to take forward these issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also made the valid point that the Statement relates to grooming gangs and particular problems and challenges that have arisen because of them; the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, focuses its direction of travel on that. However, there are also many other issues to do with child sexual abuse that the Government need to grapple with and bring forward some solutions to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is aware of the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come to this House after the Conference Recess. A number of measures in the Bill will ensure that we meet the Alexis Jay recommendations, including on mandatory reporting. If the Bill achieves support from both Houses, there will be additional new legislative measures to improve performance on mandatory reporting, as well as new powers on tackling AI generation of child sexual abuse images.
It should also never be forgotten that the Home Office itself spends in the region of £60 million per year on preventing child sexual abuse, as well as on supporting victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. The Statement is therefore an update on where we are; it is not the end product. If noble Lords look at the Crime and Policing Bill, the work the Home Office is doing and the announcements in the Statement, they will see that big movement is being made to tackle this issue in an appropriate and effective way.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, when the Government first announced the national inquiry, they said that it would be an innovative—and, I thought, very interesting—new model, which would enable individual local investigations to be overseen by a national commission with statutory powers. However, this Statement, which I appreciate is not the end point, now seems to refer to a standard overarching inquiry which will identify priority areas for investigation and report the findings at a local and national level. The main body of work seems to be being carried out by the chair and whoever they may have to support them. I might be missing something, but this is exactly how IICSA operated. There is nothing wrong with that—it did a great job—but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether there is, in fact, any difference in terms of structure between this inquiry and the one that went before it? As it stands, the only thing I can see is the introduction of a time limit, and that is a very good thing, but it is perhaps a little easier to do in this instance, given the great body of evidence we have already amassed over many years in this area.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and the work she has done in this area. She will remember that in January, the Home Secretary announced a £5 million fund for local inquiries, and we are encouraging any local authority to bid for that resource if it still wishes to. The terms of reference for a national inquiry will be set when the chair is appointed. We want to consult and involve the chair in how that operation works and how we get the best information, knowledge and inquiries at a local level. I anticipate that the chair will be able to formulate the view of the inquiry’s operation in relatively short order once appointed, and that I will come back and update this House on how local and national issues are intertwined. There is that £5 million fund, and local authorities are currently developing examinations of their performance because of that fund. I am hopeful that, although we are moving to a national-based inquiry, the lessons at a local level will not be lost and, instead, will be intertwined into national conclusions from the future chair when appointed.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement, which is necessarily looking into things that have already happened. To pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—and I know that I shall stray a little from the Home Office’s brief—does my noble friend agree with me that it is critical that schools are places where children are able to use their voice in their own advocacy, that children’s rights are necessarily respected, and that all schools have a sense of what trauma-informed practice looks like? Beyond the punishment of offenders, we still have young people, victims and survivors, who will be in schools, and we need to make sure that those are places where all members of staff in schools have the time, space, training and empathy to be able to understand what has happened and to help young people move forward.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend tempts me to stray into areas that are the responsibility of the Department for Education, but the points that she has made are well made. We need to have supportive mechanisms, training and the ability to identify individuals. Critically—and this is a Home Office responsibility—we are putting mandatory reporting into play in the Crime and Policing Bill, which again requires training and support for teachers particularly and those individuals who come into contact with children to ensure that children have the confidence to report and get over—and, if those reports take place, to ensure that individuals have a mandatory statutory duty to report that to the police for further investigation. The points she makes are very well made, and I will refer those comments to my colleagues in the Department for Education.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I, too, put our record our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for the work she has done to date and for the further work I hope she will do in future.
I follow up on the comments made by the noble Baroness opposite on not only schools, but on youth workers and services in particular. Detached youth workers are in a prime position to befriend and seek the confidence of young people who may have been victims of grooming gangs. It overlaps with education, but it is really important that we do not silo things into Home Office affairs and education.
Often, victims are not only young people but vulnerable people. That is what I have seen from my experience of working in youth services for the last 30 years. People who were grooming were picking on people because they were vulnerable. One vulnerability is people fleeing domestic violence. Often, you will see that people are away from where they used to live, and in some communities they have been very visible—that is, people can see they are from outside. I seek assurances from the inquiry on the group-based gangs that we will also seek out working alongside refuges for women in particular to see whether they can bring victims forward. I am concerned that in some communities, because of the issue around honour, women will want to remain silent because they just want to put that horrific past behind them. They also have to be brought forward to be able to tell their story and hold those perpetrators to account.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely valuable contribution. I agree with him that we need to look not just at teaching staff but youth staff and other contacts within the church and community that come into contact with young people. The purpose of all that is to give victims the confidence to be able to talk about those things. The mandatory reporting measures that we have put in the Crime and Policing Bill will make it a responsibility for individuals to then report that to the police for further investigation.
The noble Lord makes a very important point about confidence in bringing forward historic sexual abuse issues, particularly honour-based sexual abuse issues. He will know that the operation I mentioned earlier, Beaconport, is looking at historic abuse. Over 1,200 cases are now being surfaced. They will be investigated. There are 216 priority cases within that. If there are further cases to be brought forward, they should be reported for further investigation of a historic nature. My colleagues in the National Crime Agency will be detailing more about that, because that is an operational matter for them, later this month.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s intentions in seeking the power to require a local planning authority to set the level of fees for planning decisions.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I start by reiterating our view that the Bill does not go far enough. It tweaks processes, roles, fees and training but leaves the fundamental planning framework—the very framework needed to unlock genuine house building—without the proper reform that Ministers promised. We now hear in the media that a second planning Bill is expected. The Government have missed an opportunity with the Bill.
Amendments 94FB and 94FC in my name seek to probe the Government’s intentions behind the powers given in Clause 48 to local planning authorities and the Mayor of London to set specific fee levels for planning applications. Fee setting must strike a careful balance between national consistency and local flexibility. Planning authorities operate in vastly different contexts, from rural districts handling modest, small-scale applications to major cities building highly complex developments. That diversity and its differences must be respected; a one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the practical realities faced by local authorities on the ground.
As currently drafted, Clause 48 enables the Secretary of State not just to permit but to require that these bodies set fee levels. While enabling authorities to set fee levels is one thing, which would potentially support greater local flexibility, requiring them to do so raises important questions: first, in what context would the Government require a local authority to set a specific fee?
My Amendment 99ZA is also a probing amendment. In tabling this amendment, we are seeking to understand how subsection (6) will work in practice. Can the Minister please explain the process Ministers intend to use in calculating appropriate surcharges, and how the duty to have regard to relevant costs will work in practice? It will also be helpful to know whether Ministers intend to consult local planning authorities going forward to ensure that the fees imposed do not exceed the relevant costs incurred.
I will now briefly set out our view on the other amendments in this group. We agree with the principle behind Amendment 94G from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Of course, all fees should be proportionate. That said, delivering it through an amendment to the Bill may be more challenging. Therefore, will the Minister please address the principle of proportionality and how the Government intend to ensure that fees are proportional as well as responding to the amendment itself?
I move on to Amendment 95, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As drafted, Clause 48 explicitly excludes enforcement. She makes a strong case for her amendment, and I hope that the Minister will reply constructively. In particular, we would like greater clarity on the “polluter pays” principle. Will the Minister please explain why enforcement action has been left out of this fee-raising power? Is it because the Government feel that it would be inappropriate for applicants acting within the rules to pay a higher fee to cover the cost of enforcements against bad actors? I hope that the Minster will be able to give an unequivocal answer to that question.
Furthermore, Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, address two important aspects of the planning system: transparency and heritage protection. Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance to local authorities includes references to archaeological and other services, so that external services are correctly funded. I know that my noble friend has a wealth of experience on heritage issues, and he was a truly excellent Minister for the arts and heritage. We would appreciate a clear assurance from the Minister on this issue.
Amendment 97 would rightly preserve the very long-standing policy of not charging for listed building consent. This is a vital protection for owners, who often invest significant time and resources in maintaining some of England and Wales’s most treasured heritage assets. Although policymakers in the socialist tradition and the owners or prospective owners of heritage properties may not be natural bedfellows, our historic houses have an important role to play in our housing stock.
The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe; almost four in 10 houses were built before World War II, and two in 10 were built before World War I. Too often, historic houses are left empty to wither and decay because of the costs and complexities of taking them on, yet every historic property that is restored is an empty home returning to use. We must encourage more people to take on the challenge of restoring our heritage properties, both as a practical step in driving down the number of empty houses and as a gift to future generations. Our historic houses are part of our great island story, and my noble friend is right to seek assurance from Ministers that listed building consent will remain free of charge. Can the Minister give him a cast-iron guarantee on this issue?
I turn to Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. These proposals represent sensible and pragmatic reforms to our planning appeals system. We see the merits in the case that he makes for the introduction of differential fee levels based on the type or complexity of an application. His amendments reflect the practical realities of casework and seek to ensure that the system better aligns with the demands placed on it. Likewise, the proposal to allow the planning inspector to charge appeal fees and, importantly, to retain that income, is a constructive measure. It would enhance the inspector’s operational resilience and reduce their reliance on central funding.
Amendment 99 goes further by proposing a fast-track appeal process that is optional, fee-based and designed to deliver quicker decisions where appropriate. This is clearly a constructive proposal that Ministers should take away and consider carefully. I hope the Minister will engage positively with this amendment.
In conclusion, this group of amendments raises essential questions about the funding, fairness and functionality of our planning system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my succinct and simple Amendment 94G, and in doing so draw attention to an issue—planning fees—that might seem a bit techy on the surface and perhaps even boring, but in reality strikes at the very heart of fairness, opportunity and the future of our housing market. I recognise and acknowledge that this Government are trying to address the concerns of SME builders in different ways; thus I believe that this amendment is in line with their thinking. It seeks a simple fix to a gross unfairness within the planning fees regime.
The reality is that the way our planning fees are currently structured disproportionately penalises the very people we need most—the small and medium-sized enterprise builders, the SMEs who once formed the backbone of housebuilding in this country. Our high watermark was the 1960s and 1970s, when SMEs delivered almost 50% of our homes. But now, there are just 2,500 SME builders, down from just over 12,000 in the late 1980s.
When the large developers apply for planning permission, they can absorb the cost of these fees—dozens, or even hundreds of units. For them, the fee for a major scheme is just a fraction of their overall margin. It is, if you like, just one more line on a long spreadsheet. But for the SME builder, often working on only one site at a time, sometimes building just a handful of homes, usually locally in the community where they live, the same planning fee represents a very different calculation. Proportionally, it is far higher—sometimes eye-wateringly so—relative to the potential return. For some, it can make the difference between a scheme being viable or never getting off the ground.
Let us not forget that many SME firms operate on tight margins—it is just a fact of the market today—and have limited access to capital. They do not have the balance sheets of the volume builders, nor teams of in-house planners and consultants to smooth the path. They are nimble, creative and often willing to take on small and difficult sites—precisely the kind of brownfield or infill plots that larger developers might overlook. In that sense, they perform a vital public service, delivering homes in places where others cannot or will not. If the Government are serious about reviving the role of SME builders, whose share of new homes has plummeted to barely 10% today, we cannot afford to ignore the structural barriers that hold them back. Planning fees are one such barrier, and it is entirely within our power to address them in this Bill.
My amendment addresses this issue without costing the Treasury a single pound. I am not suggesting that planning departments should be starved of resources—quite the opposite: we all hope that they will be even busier in the future. We all know they need proper funding to recruit and retain skilled staff and to deliver timely decisions, but surely there is a case for a more proportionate, graduated system—one that recognises the scale of development, the number of units and the genuine impact on the planning service. Without such reform, we risk reinforcing the dominance of volume housebuilders, who are of course essential; this is not a downer on them but a recognition of the role that SMEs can play in increasing innovation and diversity. They bring local knowledge and understanding to their role. By ignoring this, we weaken our ability to deliver the variety of homes this country so desperately needs.
The reason for my amendment is that planning costs are probably the most significant disparity, with SMEs facing costs that are over 100% higher than their plc counterparts. In fact, planning fees at the moment are £626 per home for the first 50 units, and only £189 per home thereafter. Therefore, a 50-home scheme pays three times more per unit than a 1,000-home scheme. This is where it creates a real structural disadvantage for SMEs, deterring those much-needed smaller developments and slowing delivery on small and medium sites. Under the Bill, fee-setting powers are being devolved to local authorities and/or mayors, so there is a genuine opportunity to fix the imbalance.
This is not about special pleading; it is about fairness, proportionality and the kind of housing market we want to create. Do we want one dominated by a handful of big players, or one where smaller, local builders have the chance to thrive? I urge the Government to look again at the planning fees regime and at how it might better support our SME builders. Without them, our housing crisis will only deepen. My amendment would help ensure that SMEs are not burdened with excessive costs; and, over time, alongside other government measures, it might reverse their sad decline. I am pleased to note that it also chimes with Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I hope the Minister agrees.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott for opening this small group of amendments and for lending her support to my Amendment 95, to which I will briefly speak.
As drafted, the Bill leaves out the question of enforcement measures being recovered from the fee. I put a very simple question to the Minister: was this a wilful omission or was it omitted by default? As my noble friend Lady Scott said, it would be helpful to know why the question of enforcement measures not forming part of the fee that can be recovered has been left out.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Her Amendment 95 may be modest but it is very sensible, and I congratulate her on the way she outlined it. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on the way she outlined her amendment in this group. As well as speeding up the delivery of the provision of more houses, making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises is a way of making sure we can deliver the sorts of smaller developments that are popular in local areas and that match the local vernacular rather than imposing a sort of identikit, sprawling housing estate on every part of the country with no reference to local design.
I have Amendments 96 and 97 in this group, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who signed the second of these, as well as to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for the support that she outlined and her kind comments in her opening speech. Clause 48 would allow the Secretary of State to subdelegate the power to set fees for planning applications to local planning authorities, allowing them to set their own fees to reflect the actual costs that are incurred in dealing with applications and other relevant planning functions, and with that income ring-fenced so that it could be spent only on those specific functions. In many ways that is a welcome and sensible provision; I can understand why local authorities would welcome it. But for it to be truly welcomed, a great many people would like to see some further details and to hear some reassurance about this proposed change.
As is so often the case with legislation nowadays, those details and that reassurance are not in the Bill but are to follow. The Government have said that they intend to consult on the precise arrangements for localised fee setting later this year, and in Committee in another place the Minister stated that detailed processes would be set out in regulations. But it would be very helpful if the Minister could make clear today that this new provision will not include the potential for local authorities to introduce fees for listed building consent. That reassurance would bring great relief to organisations from across the heritage sector, and indeed to the very many ordinary people who happen to own listed properties and who are worried about the detrimental effect on our shared heritage and the potential financial penalties for the people who are the custodians of it.
Under current legislation, obtaining listed building consent is a cost-free process. Consent is required for works that affect the special architectural or historic interest of a listed building under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in addition to any planning permissions that might be required.
Listed status is a badge of honour—a mark of our collective appreciation for buildings of particular significance—but it brings with it burdens in the form of conservation and maintenance that are in the public interest, not just for those of us who are alive today but for future generations too, and owners of listed buildings cannot opt out of these obligations. This issue affects a very large number of home owners, not just the grandest stately homes but ordinary family homes in every part of the country. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, with around two-fifths of homes built since the end of the Second World War and one-fifth since the end of the First World War. There are some half a million listed buildings across the United Kingdom, many of them owned by people of modest and increasingly stretched means. Ensuring that this service remains free of charge to the people we ask to look after these historic buildings for posterity is hugely important. I am not the owner of a listed building but should perhaps declare a non-financial interest in that I am a trustee of the Cambridge Union, which has its own grade 2* listed property. This issue affects many charitable and civil society organisations as well.
Adding a fee for listed building consent would strongly discourage desirable work to listed buildings, especially work such as decarbonisation and conservation repair, which are often financially unrewarding to the generations that carry them out. Imposing a new fee would also discourage compliance, increasing the already considerable amount of work that goes ahead without the proper consent, risking harm to our cherished buildings and headaches when they come to be sold.
It is also worth noting that a high proportion of listed building consent applications mirror corresponding full planning applications, which already incur a cost. The introduction of fees for listed building consent would in effect be a duplication of costs for applicants when the applications are handled as a pair by the local planning authority. Even in cases where planning application is not required, having to make an application for listed building consent already carries substantial costs in the forms of obtaining drawings, which would not otherwise have been required, professional fees for analysis of heritage significance and potential impacts, and the cost of often lengthy delays. That is why a huge array of organisations across the heritage sector—the Listed Property Owners’ Club, Historic Houses, the Heritage Alliance, the CLA and the Government’s own statutory advisers, Historic England—have said that the applications for listed building consent should remain free. If the Government agree with them and with all this, and do not want to see local planning authorities introducing new charges for listed building consent, they could put that beyond doubt by adopting my Amendment 97. I hope the Minister will say that they are minded to do so.
Separately, in addition to the above, it is important that the consultation and regulations to follow the Bill recognise that many local planning authorities obtain their archaeological and other heritage advice from another local authority under service level agreements. For instance, county councils often provide such services for the district councils and national parks in, and sometimes even beyond, their own administrative area.
My Amendment 96 would ensure that guidance which goes out to local planning authorities about assessing the correct level of charges includes a reminder or recommendation that inputs from other authorities should be included to ensure that external services are correctly funded in this way. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 98 and 99, tabled in my name, which would enhance the existing statutory power under Section 303ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to charge fees for planning appeals to the Planning Inspectorate. That existing statutory power has never been used. There is currently no charge to submit an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal or non-determination of a planning application. That contrasts with the position in relation to planning applications, where applicants for major developments pay application fees of tens of thousands of pounds, and sometimes more.
A huge amount has rightly been said in the context of this Bill and planning reform generally about the importance of ensuring local authorities are fully resourced to improve the speed and quality of planning decision-making at local level. That is of course right, but the same applies to the Planning Inspectorate, which performs a critical role in scrutinising local authority decision-making and plan-making. The inspectorate is already overworked and underresourced. This has consequences for its ability to deal as effectively as it would like with its existing case work, and for its ability to attract the widest possible range of candidates to become planning inspectors, including from the private sector. A couple of years ago, many inspectors went on strike due to what they said was unacceptable pay, which in most cases is significantly less than that of a First-tier Tribunal judge, which is, broadly speaking, the equivalent of a planning inspector in other aspects of the justice system.
With the expected uptick in planning appeals and local plan examinations resulting from the new National Planning Policy Framework, as well as the Government’s promised 150 development consent orders and a raft of new spatial development strategies which inspectors will need to examine, the demands on the inspectorate’s resources are bound to increase. Given the constraints on the public purse, an obvious solution is to introduce appeal fees for some or all types of appeal. I have advocated this publicly and privately for a long time—indeed, longer than I have been in this House. I have been reliably told that a key blocker to introducing this has been that, under the existing power to charge fees, any money charged by the inspectorate could not be retained by it but would go to the Treasury.
Amendment 98 is designed to address this by providing that, if the power to charge appeal fees is implemented in future, the fees received will be ring-fenced for the inspectorate. That mirrors the existing provision in Clause 48 for local authority planning application fees to be ring-fenced for planning. I must stress that this is only an enabling provision. The effect of Amendment 98 would not be to introduce appeal fees; it would simply ensure that, if the existing power to introduce such fees were to be implemented in future, the inspectorate could keep the fees. I find it very hard to see what policy objection there can be to that, particularly given the Bill’s existing provision for fee ring-fencing at local level.
Amendment 99 goes further and would make provision—again, this is only an enabling power—for an optional fee that appellants could pay for a fast-track, bespoke appeal process, a bit like one can pay extra for a fast-track passport or a fast-track visa. Ask any developer or land promoter what their biggest concerns about the planning appeal system are at the moment and they will tell you four things. The first is unpredictable delays in the process, particularly the time taken between when a planning appeal is submitted by the appellant and when the Planning Inspectorate validates it and issues a start letter.
The second is the lack of a right to a public inquiry, where the local authority’s refusal or non-determination of their planning application can be subjected to detailed scrutiny through cross-examination. The appeal statistics persistently show that inquiry appeals have the greatest success rate—they are the form of appeal that delivers more homes and more growth—yet there is no right to the inquiry. The Planning Inspectorate chooses the process and, given the constraints on its resources, there are only so many cases it can allocate to the inquiry procedure. More and more often, I personally have seen cases for substantial schemes involving issues of real complexity being allocated against the appellant’s will to the hearing process, or even written representations, which are much lighter-touch processes and, in my view, in the light of that have a markedly lower success rate.
Thirdly, there is the inability of the inspectorate to recruit from the widest possible range of backgrounds in the planning profession due to the pay constraints. There are, I must stress, many really brilliant planning inspectors, but there could be many more. Fourthly, once a planning appeal is started by the inspectorate, often after weeks of delay since the appeal was submitted by the appellant, inquiry or hearing dates are then imposed on the parties at relatively short notice, which can have the effect of depriving them of expert witnesses or legal representatives who have been on the project for years and are integral to its conception and formulation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lord Parkinson and Lord Banner have made powerful cases for their amendments. I will briefly take survivors of LURB back two years to Amendment 235, which I had proposed in Committee, and which was proposed on Report by my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and which effectively did what is now in Clause 48. Crucially, it enabled or authorised local authorities to recoup the costs of their planning department, but it did not require them so to do. I take the point that my noble friend Lady Scott made in her speech as to why the words “and require” were not in the original request by the local authorities. On Report, the Government resisted the amendment. They were defeated, and I confess that I played a modest role in that defeat. To the Government’s credit, they then accepted it in the other place and it came through.
The crucial question—one touched on by my noble friend Lord Banner—is whether this is going to be enough to solve the crisis in our planning departments. Reforms to the national planning policy introduced by the last Government are still working their way through the system. Earlier this year, only a third of local authorities had adopted a plan in the last five years, while 291 had plans of more than five years old, and they have to get those plans up to date. The moment they have done so, they are then confronted by local government reorganisation, with smaller units turning into larger, unitary ones. The Government have then said that, where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are expected to promptly prepare a local plan covering the whole of their area. So they basically have to start again.
At the same time, the Government want to reduce all the current delays in processing planning applications so that we can get on with infrastructure, and a large majority of applications are not processed within the statutory timescale. Shortly, we will come to Chapter 2 of this part of the Bill, which introduces spatial development strategies. Again, under the Bill, the planners in these new strategic authorities must produce spatial development strategies providing strategic policies for the use of land in their area.
In a masterly understatement, the Government said:
“We are aware that areas undergoing local government reorganisation and devolution will experience a transition period where responsibility for spatial development strategy might transfer between authorities”.
The crucial question that the Government must answer is whether planning departments will, even with these reforms, be able to respond to the Government’s requests. If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills, they might rise to the challenge. However, there is an additional problem in that many planning officers will have to reapply for their jobs. Some may well take redundancy as a consequence of the merger of local authorities. The LGA workforce survey found that 62% of councils have difficulties recruiting planning officers and 45% have difficulties retaining planning officers, many being tempted by higher salaries elsewhere—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Banner.
Finally, we are going to have new town development corporations. They will need planning departments. When the Minister replies, I hope that she can reassure the Committee that there will be the capacity within the planning system to respond to the Government’s ambitious agenda.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am not a planner, but I do have the joy of owning a small property in Cornwall, which is part-listed. I took a lot of advice when I wanted a new kitchen at the back of the building on whether I needed listed building consent. The answer was, “If it’s in Cornwall, yes, but if it’s in London, no”. There are many differences between areas of this country, which we have not talked about this morning but will come into the assessment of how the criteria are done.
In Cornwall, they are trying to keep the villages and towns looking good and beautiful, which is fine. However, you then hear comments from people like a friend of mine who wants to put a summer house at the far end of the garden, away from the listed house, and must get listed building consent. Everybody is moaning about that and the cost. On the other hand, if you do not have some criteria like that, you will have a mess. On Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, it is a great idea to say that these charges should be waived, but an awful lot more needs to go into it. Frankly, the amount of money needed to pay for listed building consent for the average small house is not that great. Therefore, I do not support Amendment 97. I hope that we can accept that there will be pros and cons but that the need to have listed building consent in a reasonable way overturns everything.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 95. Nobody likes to see fees going up, and I totally support the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her concern about calculation and control. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her very well-reasoned cry for support for the SME builders.
I want to put my weight behind Amendment 95, because quite often in this House I have said how much we like to make legislation and how little we then resource the enforcement of it. This Bill seems specifically to exclude money for enforcement. I cannot let it pass without asking the Minister to explain why and to lend my support to Amendment 95.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I agree that enforcement of legislation is almost as important as legislation itself.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her quest for lower fees for SMEs, even if that means that other fees must be a trifle higher. We worked on the problems facing SME builders and the dire decline in their market share when we sat together on the Built Environment Committee. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson on that subject. It is clear from the forensic contribution of my noble friend Lord Banner that the appeal system would also be a nightmare for SMEs.
In her summing up, I very much hope that the Minister will advise on what the Government are doing to help SMEs more broadly, and whether it is enough, and for those building houses on their own—which my sister did successfully in Vermont, USA, but which is extremely rare in the UK.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I feel obliged to declare an interest as the owner of a listed building with a lot of practical experience of listed building consent. I strongly endorse the words—and, I suspect, the amendment—of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I certainly endorse the spirit and the direction of the amendment. Without repeating anything that he said, I will elaborate on two points, one that he alluded to and one that he made.
The one that the noble Lord alluded to demonstrates in a lot of depth the main points that he made in relation to fees and listed buildings. He alluded to the style of politics that has come in over 10, 20 or perhaps more years of Governments choosing to use statutory instruments to add to legislation. He is far too young, though certainly not unstudious enough to have researched if he chose to, my first ever clash with the Government Whips in 2003. It was on a statutory instrument on listed buildings. The then Government, and a Minister who has long since disappeared into obscurity outside politics, had the great idea that they would introduce, I think for environmental reasons, a change in planning legislation, so that for listed buildings every single window would be required to have listed building consent for any change to it.
It was well motivated, it was technical nonsense and it was logical nonsense. I pointed it out and, bravely at the time, very publicly abstained, for which my Whip wanted to give me the sanction of banning me from ever sitting on a statutory instrument again. I thought then and think now that this was probably a reward for bad behaviour that should be gleefully accepted. However, there was no question. The civil servants and the Minister had not thought this through, but it was a statutory instrument, done on the green Benches, the Whips lining people up on both sides, not to speak but quickly to vote it through in as many seconds as they could so that people could get on with the rest of their Commons life. Somebody pointing out that the whole thing was total nonsense was a bit of a shock to the system. Of course, it was passed.
Therefore, the law in this country is that if you have 300 windows—which, because of the design of windows, our property does—then every physical alteration to any one window requires an individual listed consent. I am not sure that this is too logical, but if a fee is applied, the behavioural response is very straightforward. Nobody at any level within the country is going to start putting in listed building consent for any repairs to windows. If one wanted to change a wonderful traditional historic wooden window and put in some grotesque modern UPVC alternative, then it is right and proper that the planning authorities should be able to stop you. However, if you want to splice a bit of wood and replace a bit of a window, it is rather a nonsense.
That nonsense would be compounded if, for environmental reasons, some future Minister decided to add further legislation or keep this legislation. Then there is the cost to be paid. That is an unforeseen consequence. It is an absurdity, but the absurdity already exists.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendment 97, to which I have put my name. I am an owner of a listed building, and I have been involved with a large number of others, both as an owner and a trustee, over a long period. I am also president of Historic Buildings & Places, which is one of the national amenity societies, and I ought to add a confession: I am a geek about old buildings, having become a life member of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings as a 21st birthday present.
I echo the general comments that have been made on this grouping more widely. The proposition behind Amendment 97 is relatively simple; it was laid out in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, so there is no advantage in my going over much of it again. Listed building consent is an integral and important part of the overall town and country planning code of this country—albeit its character is a bit different from the general rules about development, as the noble Lord speaking previously pointed out. In reality, its scope is wider and deeper than the general planning rules in some ways and relates to matters of historic and architectural significance, which are very important to place-making—which is one of the things at the centre of current thinking about the future spatial development of this country. Sometimes, these things are hardly noticeable to the layman; they may not necessarily be understood. It is the reality of the world in which we live that many of them are overlooked and go by default—sometimes, I regret to say, wilfully and sometimes not.
Against a background of that kind, charging a fee is likely to encourage more of the same—more turning a blind eye and more hoping that nobody will notice. We are talking about physical things here, and our response should be pragmatic and to accept this reality.
As was commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, some may say that some listed building consents are integral to big, visible schemes. As he said, in those circumstances, regular planning consent—if I can call it that—is invariably required for the wider scheme of which they are an integral component. That is the way that the matter should be dealt with. I simply suggest that this amendment represents a realistic and pragmatic way to make the system work as well as it can, simply because charging a fee is unlikely to make the system as a whole work in the public interest.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I will ask two questions of the Minister. I apologise for asking them at the end of the debate, when the time available to get a reply is modest, but I was prompted by some of the points that have been made. I declare an interest as the owner of a listed property, but I do not propose to talk about that much, as I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who explained the case very well.
The first question is on setting fees. The Minister may recall from previous debates on other Bills that I am keen on the capacity for applicants to enter into planning performance agreements with local planning authorities, and for those agreements to have not only the opportunity to pay additional fees to secure performance by the local planning authority but a rebate if the performance of the local authority does not meet the agreement. I am not entirely sure that that is presently legal. Can the Minister let me know, now or later, whether we need to do more to ensure that the regulations that this Bill will enable will stretch so far as to include that kind of provision to support planning performance agreements?
The second question is in pursuance of my noble friend Lady Scott’s Amendment 99ZA. She is asking on what basis the Secretary of State, in Clause 49, will ensure that the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons—these are mainly statutory consultees and the like. New Section 303ZZB(8), inserted by the clause, says:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.
So we appear to have a clause that says, “They shouldn’t exceed the costs; oh, but, by the way, they may exceed the costs”. What precisely is the Government’s intention?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will make two brief points. This debate has shown us that we need to charge fees for planning permission, and one has to understand the purpose. It is common ground that there is a lack of planners in this country, which is one of the reasons why the fee arrangement has to change.
One reason why we have insufficient planners in this country is not that we cannot charge enough. My authority, South Norfolk, has an advanced programme of upskilling planning technicians to become fully qualified planning officers, on a work release scheme, by using the apprenticeship levy that all councils and large employers put into the system. However, this Government have stopped that, because those sorts of people, who have made their way for a few years and have shown expertise and enterprise, are no longer able to be upgraded by using the apprenticeship levy. That has been cast away and it is an omission. I ask the Minister whether she might consider revisiting that rather short-sighted decision to stop upgrading these planners, which would start to address this.
I have huge sympathy with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about proportionality in planning fees, but I need to explain that, although the planning fee is important, it is just a single sliver of the total cost that developers, particularly small developers, have to pay. For example, there is the complexity of Section 106. As a council leader, I had to review a Section 106 agreement of which 15 banks were cosignatories. Can your Lordships imagine the cost not just of the applicants’ but of everybody else’s fees? The bespoke nature of many Section 106 agreements is really onerous. Some planning authorities require the use of only their particular lawyers, at a full rack rate. I will not go into nutrient neutrality, although that has an additional level of fees, or building control and so forth.
I know that we are in Committee, and I sympathise with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, but, if she is minded to bring this matter back on Report, we might have a full idea of all the layering so that proportionality can be taken into account in the round.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
This group of amendments raises several interesting areas about which I, as a chartered surveyor and an occupier and co-owner of listed buildings, feel strongly. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these and the question of proportionality referred to by several noble Lords and by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It relates to how the costs are built up and into what particular categories, pigeonholes or whatever one wishes to put them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this question of the preponderance of very large developments in terms of their cost, and how the same metric applies to smaller SMEs and indeed, one could say, to individual householders with really quite small-scale things. She could perhaps have referred to the fact that the way in which large developments end up setting the tone and the content that goes into planning applications therefore raises the expectation. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, it creates that rather awkward but historically well-known feature of a barrier to entry by the very nature of where you have to get to, what boxes you have to tick and what expense you have to underwrite to get there. This principle is as old as economics, but it is one of the things that is particularly germane to this discussion.
Of course, if we are getting into the situation referred to by other noble Lords of some sort of cross-subsidy from the application fee to issues of enforcement or covering other things, for instance the general costs of the legal department dealing with gruesomely complicated Section 106 agreements—I have seen some gruesomely complicated ones and am very glad to say that I have never had to draft one myself—that rather raises the question: is that right, or should we be subdividing, for instance, the costs of enforcement as a separate charging entity and the costs of dealing with a particular Section 106 agreement dealt with as part of that process? We have to worry about the degree to which there is this cross-subsidy approach, because without a set of rules for that, almost any sort of charging process can be set in place. That might be manifestly unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons.
I very much welcome Amendment 97, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I can relate to it as an owner, and in the past a professional adviser on heritage properties, although I would not really claim to be a heritage expert. We have heard that listed building applications are an addition to the need for development consent generally. Because they may revolve around matters that involve the historic character of the asset in question, it then becomes a matter of what is the character and what is the effect. These are often largely subjective considerations. That inevitably results in a sort of precautionary reaction in the eyes of local authorities. Inevitably, if that precautionary reaction takes root, all sorts of assessments and justifications may then be demanded of the applicant. Whether in fact they are reasonable is often in question. Given that, for owners who happen to live in or own listed buildings—putting aside badges of honour, in my case, several have been listed during my lifetime and ownership gratuitously imposed without consultation—I think it fair that the listed building element should not attract an additional fee.
It is important that we get this in context, and I observe that many local planning authorities do not have their own trained heritage officer. Many used to but no longer have one. In my experience, it is often outsourced to a private firm for so many days a month. Again in my experience, even where the external contractor so appointed makes a sensible recommendation, further conditions quite often get added by the local planning authority itself, in some instances displaying quite woeful failure to understand the practicalities of carrying out the work proposed. I will not go into further details on that, but I have several examples. It is therefore a matter of concern that defensively preventive or precautionary permitting practices and a lack of in-house officer competence—and, indeed, confidence—lie behind the added costs. Added to this, of course, is the citation relating to listing of buildings. In many cases, it is so cursory as to prevent a clear understanding of what features are actually important in terms of its character.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that something needs sorting out on a much wider scale here. I certainly would commend the Minister to take this away and see if we cannot, in the context of the Bill, produce something more cohesive going forward.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I do not envy the Minister having to respond to this very cogent debate, which at first sight seemed important but not as in-depth as it has turned out to be. We on these Benches strongly support the amendment in my noble friend’s name, and she made a very strong argument for its adoption. Other key points have been made and we have broad agreement with them, dependent on the detail that will come, I guess, from the Minister.
First, on listed building consent, which is currently free—not the project itself but the actual listed building consent—we would support that remaining free of charge for the owners of those listed buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, clearly made the very strong case for its continuation. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a categorical reason for its retention.
Secondly, on enforcement and appeals, it seems to me that the legislation that enables costs of appeals to be made ought to be enforced and enacted, and the money should go to where it belongs—not to the Treasury but to the Planning Inspectorate. Again, that was a strongly made argument with which we have broad agreement.
Finally, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—which he and I raised during the long debates on the levelling-up Bill—has come back again. He rightly raises the issue, as I did at the time, that councils ought to have a local plan and, without it, the planning system falters or, indeed, often fails. It would be good to hear from the Minister what actions the Government intend to take to encourage and enforce the idea of all councils having a local plan, albeit within the context of further reorganisation of local government, which will put such concentration of energy on to a strategic planning system for local councils in jeopardy.
This has been a really good debate, and we have broad agreement with all the points that have been made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, that was a very interesting, wide-ranging, detailed and thoughtful debate around many planning matters, including some of the amendments that had been tabled. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. As a planning geek myself, it is never a trouble to listen to these types of discussions. I will answer some specific points, but I would like to make a couple of general comments first.
In introducing her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked for a more radical approach to planning. The noble Lord, Lord Young, set out the radical approach even better than I could myself. I have, of course, heard completely opposing views on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before us, with one set of people saying that it is too radical and another saying it is not radical enough. I always think that if you get to there, you are probably in about the right place, but your Lordships will be the judge of that.
The Bill is a step in driving forward the infrastructure planning and changes to planning that we want to see in order to get economic growth going, but it is not the only step. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, outlined, as we continue with our planning for new authorities, there will be further change in introducing the strategic plans—that is coming forward in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I look forward to debating those changes with noble Lords in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, also mentioned the investment that is needed in planning. We are very aware of the fact that the cuts to local government funding that we all experienced over a couple of decades have meant that the investment in planning was not always there. We have already put £46 million in to try to improve the investment in planning and the quantity and capacity of planning departments. We will continue to work on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of local plans. We are already making progress on that. The Secretary of State has made it very clear to local authorities that she expects to see local plans in place. You jeopardise the whole process of development in this country when you get an out-of-date local plan, and developers can ride roughshod over local wishes because there is no local plan in place. It is a very important part of the process. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the issue of how these local plans will be reconstructed when we get new authorities in place. Of course, much of the work will have been done. We will not need to redo all the studies; they can be aggregated into those wider plans. But it is important that those plans will be in place.
To pick up a point that is not in these amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I am aware of the issue with level 7 apprenticeships in planning. I was very keen on planning apprenticeships and having that route to good quality and more capacity in planning teams. I am discussing that with colleagues in the Department for Education and will comment on that further when I have had more discussions with them.
Turning now to Amendments 94FB and 94 FC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I understand the importance of ensuring that local planning authorities or the Mayor of London are not burdened with unnecessary obligations, particularly in relation to fee setting. That is why I want to be very clear. The Government’s intention is to pursue a local variation model. The approach will not require local planning authorities or the Mayor of London to set their own fees but instead provides those authorities with the option to vary from a national default planning fee where they consider it necessary to do so to better meet their costs.
However, we believe it is important to retain a flexibility within that power. The inclusion of “or require” preserves the ability to mandate local fee setting should there be a compelling case for it in the future—for example, to improve service delivery or address disparities in performance. Removing that flexibility would risk constraining our future ability to evolve the system. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about how we will monitor planning performance. He will know very well that an extensive planning monitoring regime in already in place, which local authorities have to meet. Keeping an eye on this, as well, will help with that. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that retaining this power in its current form represents a balanced and prudent approach and that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for tabling Amendment 94G. I am entirely in accord with her on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the nature and size of the planning application. In her very clear explanation of her amendment, she rightly highlighted the importance of our SME building sector, which we also saw highlighted, as she will remember, in the report of the Competition and Markets Authority. I share her intent to do all we can to support SMEs. Indeed, it was a local SME builder who helped me kick off my housing development programme when I was a council leader. It was a mutual arrangement—we helped support them and they helped support what we were doing. There can be very good arrangements locally.
However, the Bill already provides a clear and robust framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned the proportionality issue. As I just mentioned, the Government intend to introduce a local variation model under which a nationally set default fee, developed through benchmarking and public consultation, will serve as a baseline, as is currently the case with planning fees. To answer the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Neville-Rolfe, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.
The model ensures both consistency and transparency in fee setting while allowing local planning authorities the flexibility to depart from the nationally set default fee where circumstances warrant. The Bill requires that any locally set fee must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service—I hope that picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—and that local communities must be consulted on proposed changes. Importantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate, thereby providing an important safeguard to uphold consistency and equity across the system. I am therefore confident that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve.
On Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I agree that well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need, but also for safeguarding those communities from unauthorised or harmful development. We appreciate the intention of the amendment in supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity but, as planning enforcement serves the wider public interest, it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services. Allowing planning authorities to raise planning fees to cover enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees. We are concerned that that may deter development at a time when we are committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building.
To answer the noble Baroness’s question directly, this was not an oversight in drafting the Bill; we did consider it. More broadly, the Government have, as I have already mentioned, committed to the £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendment. My concern is that it looks as though the Government are going to build on functional flood plains. That is why the role of property resilience measures is so important, and why the enforcement should be included in the fees. So, I hope she will think again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that and for her long-standing lobbying on flooding issues. We have a group of amendments later today on flooding. I hope that I can pick up some of the questions she has raised under those amendments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his Amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that guidance to local planning authorities on setting planning fees explicitly advises them to include the costs of essential services, such as archaeology, provided by local authorities. We recognise that, especially in two-tier areas, planning authorities may need to obtain expertise from other authorities to determine applications. Where local authorities choose to set their own fees, they will be expected to take account of the costs incurred in obtaining such contributions and reflect them appropriately in their fee-setting process.
As I have just highlighted, we are currently undertaking a national benchmarking exercise and engaging with local planning authorities to develop a consistent and evidence-based approach to local fee setting. A consultation on the national default fee schedule and the framework for local fee setting will then be published later this year. These matters are best addressed through secondary legislation and detailed guidance, as that provides the flexibility we may need—I can see the noble Lord nodding; he has probably given that answer himself from the Dispatch Box—to respond to evolving practice and local circumstances. That is particularly true in planning, which is such a dynamic area. As such, I do not consider it necessary to place the requirement in primary legislation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in an important debate. In closing the debate for the Official Opposition, I would simply like to say that a number of crucial issues have been raised this morning by noble Lords across the Committee. We hope that Ministers will continue to engage constructively between Committee and Report, as there are still some questions to answer about the proposals, so that we can come to an agreement on a number of areas where we believe the Bill can be improved. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thurlow
“(1A) Training for all members of local planning authorities must include specific training on the role of design for the external appearance of developments as it relates to their exercise of relevant planning functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that mandatory training for all members of local planning authorities in England includes training on design as it relates to their role in determining planning applications, particularly in the context of the built environment, character of the area, local materials, and variety of styles to break up monotony within larger housing developments.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I rise to introduce the second group of amendments today and to speak specifically to my Amendment 99A. These amendments focus on the need for wider training in design for those involved in the planning process, particularly within local authorities. In doing so, I declare my interests as a surveyor and a consultant in the property sector and the occupier of a listed building, although that is not relevant in this group. These interests are set out in the register.
To understand fully the background to this group, it is important to have some awareness of the way in which planning applications are processed within local authorities. Anyone present in the Chamber today who has had experience of making planning applications in the past few years will be woefully aware of the difficulties that process usually involves. It has become something of a nightmare for applicants. There are difficulties in arranging meetings with senior planners, and receiving advice and guidance in any sort of a timely fashion is hopelessly slow. Non-controversial consents can be delayed for many months. My son George is currently waiting and waiting and waiting for progress to build a house. It is non-controversial, and there have been no objections, and he has had support from the local planning authority, but can he get his piece of paper? No, he cannot, and it is difficult for him to establish why.
As we heard eloquently in discussions on the first group, the teams are underresourced—in almost all cases, from what I can glean, critically underresourced. Morale is often low, and we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Banner, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, about this. The revolving door of staff leaving for better paid, more interesting work, usually in the private sector, is a constant drain on resources.
Planning officers receive a steady flow of new applications, each of which needs attention. They are often up against well-resourced applicants, frequently professional developers who are adept at using loopholes to optimise their objectives by working the system. This has the unfortunate effect of putting staff in planning departments on the back foot; they feel defensive, when they should be positive and playing a constructive role, working with applicants in all cases to produce the optimum fair and appropriate result. It becomes very difficult for them to perform this service. With the revolving door of staff, the file on any given project, particularly a larger one, may go through the hands of three different planners who have none of the history and embedded knowledge to work with. They are bound to be defensive. Proper training is vital for these professionals, but that training should not exclusively refer to the disciplines of health, safety, building control and knowledge of the wider body of legislation, let alone enforcement. Training for planners should involve a wider and more subjective brief.
Particularly with regard to the Government’s objective of 1.5 million new homes over the next few years, we must expect to see a large number of massive housing projects, which will be given some sort of fast-track treatment. Planning officers and members of committees need therefore to have an understanding of more than just the compliance with regulations and the fast-tracking, which other sections of the Bill address. Careful thought needs to be given to the impact of these new large housing projects on communities and the public at large. We must avoid the easy mistake of allowing hundreds and hundreds of lookalike matchbox developments to be built at the lowest cost, at the expense of appearance. These massive schemes—indeed, small schemes of several houses as well—should have regard to a wider design brief to overcome the relentless roadside appearance of almost identical buildings.
There have been some impressive exceptions, such as Poundbury, in Dorset, Chapelton, south of Aberdeen, and many others, but they are few and far between. This must change. It is not difficult to build row upon row of houses from a master plan with all the economies of scale for the principal elements of the construction process with a little more attention to interesting external elevations and the use of different building materials and finishes. In fact, this is cosmetics; while it will cost a little more, the benefit to local communities and society as a whole of an interesting streetscape, rather than relentless monotony, is an uplifting social service. I think it goes without saying that landscaping should be part of this.
This explains why planning officers should be carefully trained, to ensure that these simple but lasting improvements are introduced to larger-scale projects early on, for the wider benefits, not just for the residents—though they will be the principal beneficiaries. This training would require planning professionals, and in turn housing developers and their architects, to consider the impact of projects as a whole. It would require developers to display a carefully thought-out approach to the appearance of their completed developments and the wider impact of the finished product, insisting upon imaginative treatment when applied to external appearance. The process of continuous professional development, or CPD as it is known, would be a simple and rapid chance to deliver training to these professionals and to do so within months, rather than years. Bearing in mind the obligation within most professions for a minimum number of CPD hours annually, this really is an opportunity.
I firmly believe that this subject of imaginative design and external appearance applying to projects as a whole should become a required element of the training for professional planners. As the Government attempt to squeeze hundreds of thousands of housing units into a limited space, with lasting effects on the landscape and the quality of life of residents, it is an opportunity to kickstart a new era, with an intelligent planning discipline for the benefit of society as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and hope she will accept this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 99AA in my name is the first of a number of amendments we will be considering over the coming weeks on the importance of sport and recreational provision being an essential priority for planning policy in this country. At a time when playing fields are under threat, swimming pools are being closed and obesity is a growing reality among the population, especially young people, the need for a national plan for physical activity, recreation and well-being is vital if we are going to turn the tide and deliver a legacy for a country that rightly still celebrates the outstanding Olympic and Paralympic Games of London 2012. I declare an interest as a member of the Olympic committee which had oversight of the Games from 2005 until 2012, a board member of the London organising committee of the Games, and then chair of the British Olympic Association responsible for Team GB and the 29 gold medals that our Olympic athletes delivered.
Although we had a wonderful Olympic and Paralympic Games, which left a legacy of regenerating the East End of London well ahead of the projected schedule—in fact, 10 years earlier than would otherwise have been the case—we failed to deliver a lasting sports and physical activity legacy for our country. Today, this amendment provides the opportunity for the Government to deliver that long-overdue legacy and demonstrate to the country a true commitment to sport and recreation.
The reason is unequivocally clear. The planning system provides the building blocks for the provision of open spaces, play areas, sport and recreational facilities and the well-being of the nation. As with the East End of London in the run-up to London 2012, every single facility under the leadership of Sir John Armitt, the inspirational leader of the Olympic Delivery Authority, was built with legacy use for the community in mind. Nothing failed to be considered in that context.
I want to take that experience of the Olympic Games in London nationwide. That is why my amendment would place in law a requirement that:
“Training for all members of local planning authorities must include an emphasis on healthy placemaking, which includes planning adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities to meet communities’ needs”.
It is for not just some members of planning authorities but all.
In the planning for London 2012, we learned a great deal from Australia and the success of the superb Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. Today, seven years in advance of the Games, the Minister from Queensland responsible for the Games in Brisbane is here to listen to and learn from our debate in person. He is the hard-working Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations in the Government of Queensland, Jarrod Bleijie. He is an outstanding politician, responsible for the delivery of his vision of a lasting legacy for the 2032 Games in Brisbane—for the people of Queensland, well beyond the closing ceremony. We wish him well. I briefly place on record that the relationship between Britain and Australia in sport is defined by a deep and historically significant, though always contentious, rivalry, which is second to none. Yet, although that rivalry is often intense, it also involves a strong sense of mutual respect and a shared sporting heritage that continues to evolve.
So, to reflect that close relationship, what can the Government do today? They can accept this amendment. Why? Because, as the Schools’ Enterprise Association stated, 500 swimming pools have been lost since 2010, totalling a massive 34,859 square metres of water space lost to the public. Of all the pools lost in that time, almost half—42%—have been lost since 2020, and this continued into the last year. With increasing financial pressures, ageing facilities and rising operational costs, many more pools and leisure centres are at risk of closure. Of the 10 local authorities that have seen the biggest decline in pool space, 70% have higher-than-average indices of multiple deprivation, risking exacerbating already-stark health inequalities.
By the end of Committee on this and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I aim, with my colleagues from across the Committee, to set out the building blocks for a national recovery plan for physical activity. This amendment, and others that ukactive and colleagues across the political divide, both in the House and in this Committee, are promoting, necessitate the integration of sport and physical activity facilities into planning law. We want to ensure that this is given weighting in priority that is equal to other facilities and services. It is essential that sport and physical activity are understood as the bedrock of health and well-being within a community and that there is adequate provision of facilities on this basis.
By accepting this amendment, the Government would take a small but necessary step to meet residents’ needs and provide the necessary training for all members of local planning authorities to understand the importance of adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities to meet community needs and the health and well-being of the nation.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his amendment. I entirely agree with everything he says. Not that long ago, a lido not far from where my daughter lives in east London was ripped down and turned into, of all things, a car park, which seems an ultimately depressing sanction on today. I can tell him right now that, if he chooses to divide the House on that subject in the future, I will walk behind him through the Lobby. I thank him.
On my Amendments 100, 101 and 102, I am very grateful to be supported by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on all three and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on Amendment 100. They are in addition to Clause 50, and they are about training to do with climate change, biodiversity and ecological surveying. This does not just hold up planning distinctions—it is a question not just of newts, bats and different kinds of badgers but of people not knowing what they are talking about. Therefore, a lot of decisions are not only delayed but end up going to appeal.
My Amendment 100 would mean that the training would be mandatory in the overall planning that is to be provided in general under Clause 50. Amendment 102 provides that the training must be provided not only to elected members of the planning committees but also to local authority planning officers responsible for making any planning decisions. Amendment 101 includes the highways, with the list of authorities to which the training provisions apply. That is obviously crucial and often gets left out, because roads, after all, cut through animal corridors, divide woods, divide fields and separate areas where nature is trying to talk to itself and be together.
These skills and resourcing gaps with planning authorities have been identified very generally across the board as a key blocker. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill states:
“There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development”,
yet there is clear and mounting evidence, including from the OEP, that ecological capacity and skills within the planning system is a key reason for the environmental assessment not functioning effectively.
The OEP goes on to say that
“without Government commitment to providing those public bodies responsible for assessments with the skills”
and
“expertise … needed … now or in future”,
they
“will not deliver as they should to support positive environmental outcomes”.
It advised that the Government should now develop a strategy for this resourcing and for securing the expertise by the public bodies.
A survey undertaken by the Association of Local Government Ecologists of its planning authorities found that only 53% of survey respondents said that their LPA has limited access to an ecologist for planning work, and only 5% of respondents said that their system is adequate. Any noble Lord who was in the House on Monday listening to the Science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance of Balham, answer a question about AI and training would have found it interesting to hear him say that a report from MIT last week on the use of AI across companies
“noted that 95% of companies got very little benefit and 5% got massively disproportionate benefit”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 511.]
The reason was that they had been properly trained. Whether we are talking about training to build sports grounds or training to protect wildlife, the training is needed.
The excellent charity Plantlife has highlighted that these gaps are even more acute for, say, botany and mycology. Botany was once compulsory, I guess, when most of us took GCSE biology. I certainly did it, and I did at A-level too. Research shows, however, that it is now practically non-existent. That is why, again, it is crucial that the amendment includes botanical and mycological survey.
Much has been made here of the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned this as well, but I always feel that I am trying to plead amendments that put more and more emphasis on local authorities doing more and more. I expect that many Members remember the extraordinary Dasgupta report that came out from the Treasury under the Tory Government and looked at the costs of nature. I had the privilege of spending much of last night interviewing Professor Dasgupta. We were talking about many specific things, one of which was that the real way to rebuild our shattered biodiversity and our ecological strength is, generally, through a community, but there is a very strong financial aspect here. Our GDP, at the moment, is an incentive to depreciate all natural assets. The system for measuring the state of public finances discourages all investment in maintaining the UK’s stock of natural capital. Shockingly, the Bank of England mandates do not recognise that value.
It would make a lot of sense for the Government to revisit some of these local-looking economics and say, “Yes, we can afford to train people properly; in fact, we can’t afford not to train them properly”. Well-trained councillors and well-trained planning leaders will also add to people’s enjoyment and, as with building sports facilities, the joy they take in nature, being out in the countryside and thinking it is something in which they have a vested interest to protect. Unless we all start doing that, we will all be poorer, regardless of what we do.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 103, which was tabled in July but has risen to the top only today. The aim of this amendment is really simple, although I must congratulate the Public Bill Office for also making it comprehensive. “Comprehensive” is the appropriate word here, in the week when so many people have gone back to school after the summer holidays. If this amendment is accepted, quite a few people in government might find themselves returning to their alma maters. This amendment would go beyond the provisions that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just outlined, because it would include Ministers and officials.
The Minister and I both go back some way in local government. While we might have trodden different paths in the sense that we approached things through two different political lenses, we have progressed by making evidence-based decisions grounded in policy with an intellectual honesty that would increase the well-being of those we served. I want to make the distinction between the different sorts of decisions that we take in local government. Some are political, some are part of an executive function and sometimes we make decisions within the scrutiny function. When it comes to planning or licensing, however, we make quasi-judicial decisions. These are the decisions that carry the weight of law and, when you make them, you need to be clear that you are acting within the law.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 162 in my name is in this group and I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley, who have also put their names to it. I am glad that we have included it in this group and brought it forward, because it adds to the debate we had on the previous group—and this one—about how we arrive at a resourced and professionally effective overall planning function in local planning authorities. The last debate was principally about the resources that are available; this group and this debate tells us the importance of understanding the scope, complexity, breadth and degree of professional expertise that is required to deliver a successful planning function, and the planners themselves. The amendments that lead this group, on issues relating to health, the environment and so on, have amply demonstrated the degree of influence and importance that should be attached to the planning function in a local authority’s activity. I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lord Moynihan had to say. I hope, when we reach Clause 52, he will note its value in showing that spatial development strategies should focus on health effects and inequalities. I hope that we can develop that important point.
Planners are often in this space already. Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework includes precisely the issues that relate to delivering on healthy and safe communities, including promoting healthy living. I am sometimes in awe of what is needed, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, when putting together a local plan: the range and complexity of what needs to be included in it and the extent to which one has to anticipate the many issues that many communities will face in order to deliver it.
The new clause proposed in Amendment 162 says that local planning authorities should have a chief planner and, in doing so, they can—if they choose to do so—join together and appoint a chief planner for more than one authority. I say this advisedly, knowing that in my own area Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council jointly run a shared service, with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service at its head. The clause would allow for what is current best practice. It would also flexibly but necessarily require of local planning authorities that the person they appoint to be a chief planner must have the relevant expertise and experience to justify their doing so. I hope that we could say that was always the case; it is pretty nearly always the case, but it is necessary when giving them a power and requirement to do so that we should be clear that it should be exercised in this way.
Why do we need this? Many local authorities have a chief planner—but not all. I was very struck in the briefing that we received the Royal Town Planning Institute—and I am very grateful to it for inspiring this amendment—by how important this could be in terms of supporting the professionalism and development of the profession. We want more planners; I agree with the Minister about managing to maintain level 7 apprenticeships if we possibly can—these have been very important. We need more planners, and I welcome the Government’s financial support for additional planners. However, we need not only more planners but to make sure it is very respected profession.
What will bring people into planning as a profession is an understanding that there are professional leaders. I suppose my pitch for Amendment 162 is that not only should we be resourcing planning and increasing the number of planners but we should recognise that leadership matters in every walk of life, and that we should encourage local planning authorities to have chief planners who are themselves leaders of their profession. In future there will be fewer local planning authorities than there are now. I hope that through the chief planner role, we can encourage them to look to have that kind of professional leadership.
The example we might look to is the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government itself. My noble friend Lord Fuller talks about relevant planning functions and decisions made by Ministers; they are informed by professional expertise within the department. That is a profession led by the chief planner, who herself demonstrates the value of a chief planner role in relation to the planning functions of any organisation.
Interestingly, when the Government published their technical consultation on reform of planning committees—we will come on to more about that in the next group—they referred specifically to the question of a decision being made about the allocation of decisions to planning committees to tier A and tier B, and said that it should be done by the chief planner, together with the chair of the planning committee. That seems to me to be a present, important illustration of the independence of the professional expertise that should be brought to decision-making in local authorities.
If we are to rely on that, not least in relation to the national scheme of delegation, as a basis for making solid decisions about the allocation of decision-making, we absolutely need assurance that there will be a chief planner in each of these local planning authorities. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to this debate, this might be one of the things that she has written against it not “resist” but “agree to consider”.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 162 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Best, as well as mine. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out, this is an issue of professional leadership. It also underpins the delivery of the Government’s objectives with this Bill.
I add my support on the importance of comprehensive training for those involved in making decisions on planning matters. There are some very wise additional proposals in Amendments 99A to 102, and the case made by all those amendments is overwhelming. Someone in a local planning authority has to manage the training process, which has to be done at a senior level. That is one reason why I support the statutory requirement for local planning authorities to have a chief planner—but there are other compelling reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has identified.
Yesterday in Grand Committee, there was a statutory instrument to devolve housing and regeneration powers to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils. It was most welcome, it was approved, and it is a decision by the Government in their drive to devolve more decision-making to a local level, but it will succeed only if the capacity is there to deliver the desired outcomes. That capacity relates to the number of planning officers, their status and the training they have received. As we have heard, in recent years there have been rising levels of complaints about the planning system, its complexities and its delays. As we have heard also, one major cause is the lack of qualified planning staff and the downgrading of the status of planning, given the low number of chief planning officers reporting directly to the chief executive of a local authority.
We should recognise that Scotland has, for a year, had a requirement for statutory chief planning officers to be appointed by local authorities. I submit that we should do likewise if the planning system is to be speeded up in England and if the Government are to deliver their devolution agenda.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It calls for every local authority to appoint a chief planner, and I thank the Royal Town Planning Institute for championing it. I must declare various interests as I have not already contributed in Committee: I am an honorary fellow of the RTPI and a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and the Local Government Association.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 100, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to which I and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have attached our names. In the interests of time, I will chiefly restrain myself to commenting on that, although I note the fortunate congruence of Amendment 99AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, appearing right beside it, because they fit together very well in thinking about a one health perspective.
Amendment 100 is about environmental health, but human health is entirely dependent on environmental health. In fitting all those things together, the lack of healthy places is undoubtedly one of our society’s great problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has already made a powerful argument for Amendment 100. I commend her on including mycological surveys, because that is all too often left out. That relates to the issue of soil health, which we are starting to recognise is such a crucial issue that we have ignored far too long. It is crucial to our health—human health and environmental health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said that we have a real shortage of education in our highly concentrated education system about ecology and biology. That is undoubtedly true, but our understanding of biology and ecology is moving and changing enormously fast. If you were taught biology and ecology 20 or 30 years ago, what we know now will disavow a great deal of what you were taught as statements of fact 20 or 30 years ago.
To illustrate that, and because I know your Lordships’ House loves a good chalk stream, I refer to a very alarming study out this week of the River Itchen, which is a chalk stream that has been found to have alarming levels of microparticle pollution. Microfibres and fibreglass fibres were sampled throughout the chalk stream. This has been found in samples from spring 2025. The researcher who found this says we have got to work out the sources of this pollution and what to do about them. We need to start thinking about how we stop polluting these wonderful environments and make sure that the built environment is not wrecking that. This is ultimately related to a planning question that we have got to understand.
Tying in with that—I am sorry, this is also alarming—is a study just out this week about tyre wear particles in the Rhine River. Where does the road go? The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, talked about the importance of where roads go in terms of splitting up habitats, but roads also pollute the watercourses. This is a fascinating study that shows that the nature of bacterial biofilms in the river is substantially changed by the presence, absence and nature of these tyre wear particles. Bacterial biofilms are at the base of food chains. They are key parts of aquatic ecosystems. They control nutrient cycles and form the basis of food chains.
All this is news from just the last week. If we are going to ask people to make decisions that are crucial to the biology and health of our environment, I am not saying that everyone has to be spending their time—as I probably spend too much time—focusing on studies such as this, but people need a basic level of understanding of biology or ecology to understand the way in which this knowledge is moving so fast to be able to read these reports and understand them.
My first point was about understanding ecological and biological education. In my second point, I will venture with some tentativeness into the legal side of this, because it is worth noting that the law around biodiversity and the climate emergency is a very fast-changing area. It is crucial that people have at least a basic understanding of these areas if they are going to make planning decisions that, as the noble Baroness said, are both right and will stand up in court.
I point Members to the Law and Climate Atlas, a really useful resource which was developed by the Centre for Climate Engagement in partnership with the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance. It notes that:
“Climate change may be a material consideration in individual planning decisions, and may be a necessarily material consideration, but there is no statutory requirement”,
but it may come up in court. I note that chapter 14 of the National Policy Planning Framework states that the planning system could lead to
“radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”.
But how are we going to make sure that happens? This is where the training is crucial.
With some trepidation, I will venture briefly into a specific case: the R v Surrey County Council judgment given on 20 June. This was around the scope 3 emissions from fossil fuel extraction. The final judgment given in this case in the Supreme Court stated:
“The only issue is whether the combustion emissions are effects of the project at all. It seems to me plain that they are”.
These are all issues in a fast-moving area and it is crucial that we provide planners with the training to understand what is happening. That training will have to be updated regularly. If we throw people into decision-making positions without this understanding, which we cannot expect their previous experience to have given them, we are setting them up to fail—to fail themselves, their councils and our communities.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s important Amendment 99AA. The role of training can never be underestimated, and the importance and consistency of knowledge and skills introduced by training is very important. There is no statutory protection for playing fields, parks or playgrounds, and people are extremely concerned about the potential loss of the playing fields and parks in their communities. These open spaces are critical to preserve if we can because, once they are gone, we cannot get them back.
Diminishing any existing levels of scrutiny, especially with Sport England’s role as a consultee potentially being relinquished, could further impact the loss of our sports fields and physical activity spaces and facilities. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Moynihan about the desperate state of our swimming pools and sports centres.
A study by the Fields in Trust charity quantified the well-being value of parks and green spaces at £34 billion per annum. Frequently using these spaces results in better general health and reduced need to go to the GP, quantified as saving the NHS £111 million every year. It certainly goes a long way to help the NHS and it gets people, especially young people, active, playing sport and outdoors.
Work done by other organisations, including Fields in Trust and ukactive, is vital to sport and physical activity in this country. Training all members of local planning authorities and including an emphasis on healthy place-making, which includes planning adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities, will help greatly to ensure that we have open spaces for sport and physical activity for future generations.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan said that this is his first of many amendments to several Bills. I will support him and would like to hear from others about these critical issues that will affect us in future. This amendment is important to ensure that planning officers have the skills and knowledge to deliver the planning outcomes that our local communities really need.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in his Amendment 99A on the training of planning officers to improve the environment and the appearance of the built environment. This is extremely important for lots of reasons, one of which is, obviously, that anything that makes our streetscapes more beautiful is to be encouraged. But it is more fundamentally important than that.
If we are to manage to build, as this Government tell us they will—previous Governments made the same claim—300,000 new homes every year, we will need to get local support for the homes to be built in local areas. In other words, it is no good trying to impose housing developments, new towns or whatever from the outside, without support from the local community. Local community support will be heavily dependent on the appearance of the development. If it fits in with the classic way of building in that local area, it is more likely to be accepted. If the buildings are diverse and beautiful, they are much more likely to be welcomed. If they end up being ticky-tacky little boxes all looking the same, I have to say that local opposition will be stirred up and might well be brought to a frenzy.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 162, which would put chief planning officers on a statutory basis. I agree with the case made for it by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best. I can add little to what they said, but I want to emphasise one point in particular. It is not uncommon in some—not all—local planning authorities for officers to come under considerable pressure from members in relation to matters that are within officers’ remit, whether it is preparing an officer report or an application to committee, or a delegated decision or work in relation to an emerging plan. It is entirely right and proper for members to reach their own views on matters within their remit, but matters within officers’ delegated remit should be exercised in accordance with their independent professional judgment. Putting the role of the chief planner on a statutory basis would buttress their independence and that of those working underneath them, all the more so were it to be combined with a statutory purpose of planning, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, proposes in another amendment. This is an issue already; it will be all the more of an issue in the event that the proposed national scheme of delegation becomes effective pursuant to the Bill. Amendment 162 would help give greater effect to that national scheme of delegation and ensure that it would not be undermined by officers who have additional delegated powers going forward being unduly lent on by their members in the context of exercising those delegated powers.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, the issue of training was behind my comments in the previous group about planning and proceeding on the basis of competence and confidence, so I support all the amendments in this group as well, and particularly Amendments 102, 103, and 162, which are absolutely pivotal.
In my profession, it is incumbent on practitioners not to undertake tasks for which they have inadequate technical knowledge or practical experience. Unfortunately, there is nothing which currently mandates the use and input of such professionals. So, when resources are tight and finance is limited, the inevitable result seems to be that it is passed down to the lowest-cost element of the process. This is, as other noble Lords have commented, to the increasing dismay of local communities, many of whose members have high levels of relevant knowledge and are therefore particularly concerned about what they see as self-evident flaws in what is presented. It erodes confidence, and we should really be concerned about that.
I remember that some years ago a senior political figure rubbished the idea of quality in development. It was a numbers game, and not quality. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, referred to the critical nature of satisfaction. That is satisfaction not just in the physical environment but in the working environments that we present to the people who have to administer this. Once trained, the knowledge is, of course, portable with the individual. I remember not so long ago an instance of a planning officer who left his authority, tempted no doubt by better terms from a developer, who then returned as a private sector consultant only for the purpose of undermining the very policies that he had formulated and was defending in his previous authority.
As other noble Lords have said, this goes to the heart of the satisfaction of the job, the longevity of it and whether it is properly paid, respected and nurtured, both from outside in terms of the standing of the individual and inside among committee members—I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, referred to that. It is a false economy not to make these positions worth while, durable and of standing. I remember in my early profession how important certain local government officials were. The planner, the estates director or whatever his title was, and people in other walks of life, such as the district valuer for whom I worked for several years down in Brighton, had standing and status, but not so today. They are regarded as just another, if I may put it like this, petty official. That is to the great detriment of good delivery.
I wholeheartedly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in support of Amendment 102. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, in particular, that we need to address an awful lot of these things if we are to achieve a fraction of what this Bill is capable of delivering.
I turn to Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. In the central government sector, I recently spoke to a professional body which had laboured long and hard to get a particular departmental official to understand a very complex series of issues, all of which had critical outcomes for the way in which policy would be delivered. I am not going to embarrass anybody by saying which department it was. However, with their having reached this elevated stage and got this person to really understand what was involved, that official was promptly moved to another, completely unrelated function—I am not even sure that it was within the same department. That was a loss of human resource and a waste of knowledge and experience, and it was to the considerable dismay of this body which had been trying to deal with it. If the idea is that as soon as somebody understands something, they have gone too native, or something like that, that is the wrong sentiment. We are losing people, and we are losing the force and direction of policy. While I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I fear that a much wider organisational change in terms of holding on to those core skills in appropriate locations is necessary.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to the scope of training. I would add groundwater and geology to her list of basic skills and understanding. Like her, I do not suggest that people have an in-depth knowledge of this as a trained geologist or ecologist, but they must have a minimum understanding to do the job, to know when they need further, more detailed technical advice and to understand what the advice is when it is being given. On all those counts, we are falling down. Therefore, I very much support what she says about getting this right.
This is a very large issue. I fear that much of it may, in terms of policy and implementation, stray outside the strict terms of this Bill. However, unless we address these issues and unless that forms part of the consciousness of how we move this forward, we will have another large body of Explanatory Notes, impact assessments and all the rest of it, which will ultimately be on somebody’s cutting-room floor. That is a terrible waste of the resources of this House, of the other place and of all the people who have engaged with us to give us their views on how aspects of this should be brought forward. There is a common golden thread here that I hope will be picked up by the Government. It is at the core of getting delivery on this Bill.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, with many different points made. Clearly, training is important to us, as is the status of planners, but I want to touch on issues that, much to my surprise, have not been mentioned. They have been hinted at very slightly by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who came close.
I have attended and delivered planning training to councillors. You can take a councillor to training, but you cannot make him think or learn or go back into a committee room and act any differently from how he or she did before. To be perfectly honest, I have been shocked by the arrogance, attitude and behaviour of some councillors at meetings, which I was obliged to observe as part of my role within that council. What bothers me is that there seems very little ability to sanction or take to task. Often it is individuals. Within councils, they know who they are—but they still put them on the committee the following year. That cannot be ignored. It was not just lack of understanding or wilfully not wanting to understand or genuinely not understanding, but sometimes it was the tricky and thorny issues of probity and ethics within the whole area of this and public standards.
Talking to planners, which I still do, with their work on the ground, I know that they say that the following issues are the rotten aspects of the job. There is hostility from the public—aggression, the way that they are spoken to. You have set up a positive consultation meeting with everything that you think they want to know and sometimes it deteriorates into some really quite shocking situations. They feel like they are piggy in the middle.
The other side of that coin is the politicisation of planning. There is no doubt that this has happened. I said years ago that we have turned nimbys into BANANAs—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody. Even in my local area, I find that my local environment group, which I was very proud to get well and truly established, is objecting to developments miles away which could not possibly have any impact on them. It seems to be the new form of activism and we cannot ignore that.
Planners hate their decisions being overturned by councillors, because they are professionals. They understand their role, but there are times when they just feel ignored, overruled and put in this position. They too need training in that regard.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I apologise to the Committee, as I should have done that earlier.
Under the previous Government, as part of the capacity and capability programme, the planning skills delivery fund was established to support local planning authorities to manage backlogs and strengthen professional expertise. Around £24 million was committed over a two-year period, in recognition that, for far too long, a shortage of skilled planners has represented a barrier to effective development and regeneration and the delivery of sustainable communities. I am pleased that this Government have continued that funding.
It has been clear from the debate that, across all sides of your Lordships’ Committee, there is a shared recognition of the central importance of training, whether, as we have heard, on good design, the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity, the practical application of planning law or, importantly, building healthy communities—as ably argued by my noble friend Lord Moynihan on his Amendment 99AA.
There is broad agreement that both elected members and professional officers must be equipped with the knowledge and confidence to take decisions in the public interest. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken on and reinforced the value of a well-trained planning system not only for councillors but for planning officers and, indeed, all those who play a formal role in shaping or determining planning applications. Ultimately, if we want a system that is trusted, effective and capable of delivering the homes and infrastructure that our country needs, investment in skills and training must remain at its heart.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his Amendment 103. His contribution underlined that training should not be regarded as simply a local requirement but as something that ought to apply consistently across all levels of government, including civil servants and Ministers. That emphasis on alignment between national and local implementation is an important reminder that central government must also hold itself to the same standards that it expects of local authorities. He is also right about the importance of driving up standards in decision-making. I therefore ask the Minister to set out how the Government intend to align central and local government training standards. How will they help bridge the gaps between national policy direction and local implementation?
I also thank and support my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 162, which requires local authorities to appoint a chief planning officer to ensure professional leadership. I am sure that the Government can do nothing but support this amendment. If they do, I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks a chief planning officer’s role might be in co-ordinating central government, local authorities and industry stakeholders.
Amendment 99A from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, also raises the important issue of design. In government, we did important work on design, and it was very disappointing when the Government announced the closure of the Office for Place. Well-designed homes that are in keeping with local vernacular are what local residents want and what this country needs, which is why design has such an important role to play in planning. Therefore, can the Minister give the House a clear assurance that the Government still recognise the important role that good design plays in housing delivery? In addition, how will the Government ensure that the future training requirements are properly supported so they are realistic for local planning authorities already under considerable pressures? How can we be confident that training will genuinely enhance decision making, rather than becoming a formality, and how best can consistency across the system be achieved while still respecting the role of autonomy in planning? These are important questions that have been asked in the last hour or so, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lansley, for their amendments, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate around training. I agree with what noble Lords have said generally about the importance of training in this area. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best, Lord Carrington and Lord Banner, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Sater, for their contributions, which are much appreciated.
Before I started working on the Bill, I did not realise that it was not compulsory for members to have training in planning. It has always been compulsory on my local authority, both at county level and Stevenage level, and I was quite shocked to find out that it was not compulsory.
Before I refer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I did not really recognise his description of rows of box-type construction. Since I became a Minister, I have visited literally dozens of construction sites across the country, from Durham to the Isles of Scilly, and from Greenwich to Northern Ireland. What I have seen is that they do not have this issue. There is certainly not a lack of regard for design, biodiversity or zero carbon. We have a dynamic building industry, overseen in planning terms by local councillors and officers who genuinely want the best for their communities. I have seen some excellent examples. I am sure there are some that are not as excellent as some of the ones I have seen, but this is a very dynamic industry, and it is doing its best to provide homes and communities for people across our country.
I turn to Amendments 99A, 99AA and 100, which seek to ensure that the training of committee members includes climate change, biodiversity, ecological surveying, design and healthy placemaking. I assure noble Lords that the Government believe that all these matters are crucial to good planning, and all feature strongly in the national planning policy framework. To respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on her point about design, the Government are absolutely committed not just to good design in the properties themselves but in placemaking as well. That is set out in the NPPF and in design guides, and we will be publishing our future homes and building standard later this year, which will go further in setting out what we expect. I always had a rule when I was a council leader that I would not build any homes that I would not want to live in myself. I hope to apply the same guidelines as a Minister.
I would expect these matters to feature in any training for planning committee members. For instance, it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain. The Government believe, however, that it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill. It is customary to use regulations or guidance to set out details with regard to the implementation of planning law, and the training of planning committee members should not be an exception.
The details for the training are currently under development. We will continue to engage with local government and industry to ensure that the training covers all the basic principles of planning. It would be impractical in primary legislation to provide a complete list of matters that must form part of the training content. This is an area that develops all the time, and we want to make sure we have a mechanism for changing it as things change.
There will be an element of local consideration in this. For example, I think chalk streams were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have chalk streams in my area; they are not right across the country. Everyone should know about them, in my view, and I always talk about them. If you lived in an area where they were present, you might want more training on that aspect.
Furthermore, such a list would have to be kept up to date. That process would take up valuable time in Parliament to amend the Bill.
Amendment 101 seeks to include National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities as local planning authorities to which mandatory training will apply. Although National Highways, local highway authorities and integrated transport authorities are intricately involved with spatial development, they are not local planning authorities and do not have a decision-making role in planning committees, which is the focus of this Government’s training reforms. We therefore do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the provisions to them.
Amendment 102 raises important questions about who the training should apply to. The Government introduced mandatory training for members of local planning authorities to improve the decision-making process for the many planning applications that are considered by local planning authorities every year through the planning committees and delegated authority. Many councillors sitting on planning committees are proficient in planning matters, but that is not necessarily the case, nor is it expected to be. Councillors are lay people with busy lives, juggling their councillor duties with other responsibilities. It is important that we get the balance right between training that is necessary for them to be able to take their decision-making properly but also to enable them to make the kind of decisions that make sense to local people. The training is therefore aimed at them so that they better understand the key principles of planning. In doing so, we want to ensure there is a higher level of debate and consistency in decision-making across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issues of standards. I pay tribute to our planning officers. They face unacceptable behaviour from the public but also, occasionally, regrettably, from councillors. I can reassure the noble Baroness that I am about to embark on a significant piece of work with the code of conduct task force. We will be talking about that more in the early part of next year.
The training is not intended for officers of local planning authorities with responsibility for making or advising on planning decisions, nor any other person to whom decision-making functions are delegated. That is because it can reasonably be expected that all officers who have a formal responsibility for advising on or determining planning decisions are recruited with an emphasis on professional planning qualifications or have extensive planning experience. As we know, they are also able to call in support from experts on key issues where it would not be proportionate for a local authority to have that expertise in house.
On Amendment 103, for similar reasons, the training is not intended for civil servants who make decisions on behalf of Ministers. As noble Lords will be aware, if an applicant appeals or applies directly to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector considers the case. They are planning professionals recruited for their expertise and the Planning Inspectorate provides them with considerable ongoing training.
On the training of Ministers, it is important to highlight that Ministers need, and get, bespoke training and support to fulfil their decisions. They also operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. It is probably a good soundbite to say that Ministers should also be subject to the same training requirements as a councillor. From a personal point of view, I welcome training. I have had some training, and I am happy to take it on. But I understand that in practice the role is different. We therefore do not intend to extend these mandatory training requirements to Ministers who make planning decisions—for instance, when they call in applications.
Lastly, Amendment 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, ably assisted by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Best, seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities either separately or jointly. The noble Lord is quite right to point to the practical approach of local government in some areas in developing joint planning functions to improve their capacity and resilience, and the scope of their work, which can often help with recruitment and retention as well—and the noble Lord also spoke about appointing a suitably qualified chief planning officer.
I share the noble Lord’s ambition of ensuring that all planning decisions are made with professional leadership. I am not convinced that we need to put the chief planning officer role on a statutory footing. We need to consider what a very clear rationale for such a step might be, and I am very cautious about overlegislating as the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to determine the structure of their planning departments. In practice, local planning authorities already have a senior officer who performs a function similar to that of a chief planning officer, but I will continue to reflect on that because as we go through the process of the further changes we are anticipating to the planning system, I think we need to consider it further. I hope to carry on discussions with the noble Lord and others on that. For now, for these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I have a question. She mentioned that when Ministers—who are lay people, not specialists in this field or professionally qualified in planning—take decisions, they are so advised. I cannot quite get in my mind the distinction between a Minister making a quasi-judicial decision on planning and a councillor or a mayor. None of us has mentioned mayors, but mayors are contained within the provisions of the Bill. Of course, I understand why the Secretary of State might want to resist having to get a qualification, but that is not really answering the point because this is not just about the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government. This is about Secretaries of State and Ministers throughout all the departments of state, including the Treasury, which is setting planning policy and so forth. Can the Minister help me by explaining clearly what the distinction is and why the Government appear to be resisting this so strongly?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I come back to the point I made that if an applicant applies to the Secretary of State, a planning inspector would consider the case and then advise the Minister or the Secretary of State who was taking the decision. Planning inspectors are highly qualified and highly trained. Regarding the training of Ministers, we have access to bespoke training. I have undertaken some training. Because we have to operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance, when we are making decisions we have a different call on us from that in local planning committees.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Fuller does not need to keep the Minister on her feet. This being Committee stage, he has the right to speak as many times as he likes.
I encourage the Minister to take further the last sentiments she expressed in the context of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the words spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It is important that we do something to increase the status of planning officials in local government. I have observed the effect that having chief scientific advisers in government departments has had on science and the way it is regarded within ministries. Over time it has had a really salutary effect. Having a chief planner, someone with that name and status, would be a good way of working back, providing status to the planning profession and making sure, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, that we get a collection of people who understand the limits of their knowledge and the advice that they are given and that the public trust them in that regard.
As a small contribution to that, I have tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to try to rescue level 7 apprenticeships. If the Minister was able to have a word in the ear of her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to encourage her to give a positive response to that, that might solve a range of problems, not only for planning but for other professions where level 7 is an important qualification. The point that my noble friend Lord Fuller made about the importance of taking people who have entered the profession at the technician level and upskilling them to professionals is an important part of a healthy society.
Lastly, I associate the qualities of determination and optimism with the Minister, but does she really believe that we will get to Amendment 135? If she is wavering in that belief, it would be a great help to noble Lords, when the Government realise they might fall short, if they could tell us so that those of us who have amendments late in the day might find an opportunity for more time with our families.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
To take the noble Lord’s last point first, my optimism and determination is to get to Amendment 135, but we shall see. I hope I have reassured him on the point about continuing to reflect on the issues around chief planning officers. I think I already responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on that, so I hope that reassures him.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I am impressed with the advocacy standing behind the amendments in this short group. It has taken a lot longer than I thought it would. It is clear that there is a real concern regarding the crisis in provision in the planning process and the emphasis on training needs. All these amendments should be non-controversial from a political point of view. They are about supporting apprenticeships and training at all levels and improving the positive aesthetic, pride in planning and career opportunities.
I thank the Minister for agreeing, in her very first few words in winding, with all the amendments proposed—if I heard her correctly. Perhaps that was agreement in principle. I am particularly pleased that she does not recognise my reference to street upon street of matchbox lookalike developments. I think we have been travelling in different directions. As a surveyor, I do a great deal of travelling in the car and on trains. I think the objective is the same and, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think we have to make absolutely sure that the massive developments that will arise from the housebuilding targets the Government have announced do not descend to the lowest common denominator of design and appearance.
I am afraid I am nervous about the reference to addressing our concerns across the group by way of regulation and delegated authority. We all know where that sometimes leads. We will doubtless return to the Minister’s comments on Report.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Pinnock change the provision of regulations in Clause 51 to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we now turn to the mechanics of making planning decisions. I accept the Government’s purpose in Clause 51 to drive greater consistency and expectations of the process by developers. There is a great diversity of the ways in which planning decisions are made across the country. The Government have obviously had their ear bent and are trying hard to understand that and to come to some arrangements by which planning applications are dealt with in a similar way across the country.
However, a drive to do so through regulation removes what I assert is absolutely vital local flexibility. Setting regulation by, for example, the size of application, number of houses, by hectare or, worse still, by local plan site allocation only, as may be the case, absolutely ignores local geography and the existing local built environment. Unduly restricting publicly taken decisions on planning issues may well feed the lack of trust in public institutions, which we surely all want to avoid.
That is why my amendments—there is a whole string of them—are designed to ensure that local decisions remain with local people and their elected representatives, where that is determined by local policies and by a combination, as we heard on the previous group, of local chief planning officers and the planning committee chair. People care passionately about the places where they live, and they care about the changes that are made to them. They want to be included in helping influence decisions about those changes—for example, new housing sites.
Enabling residents to take part in planning decisions is vital. At the moment, there are two ways in which residents can do so. The first is by formally objecting to an application through the planning portal and hoping that that will be taken into account in a decision. But, if that is a decision made by an officer, there is no report that will include those objections and the reasons why they may have been overturned. So one of the benefits of having decisions, particularly and mainly about controversial developments, is that the objections made by local residents can be heard in public and seen in the report that the planning officer has to make for the planning committee, which will include a summary of the objections and the reasons for them. Restricting the number of applications that are heard in public, as the regulations will do, is totally detrimental.
I will give one example of why that may be the case. A planning application near where I live is bounded by a busy main A road, the M62, a cricket field and a residential road. There are a lot of constraints on this small housing development of 20-odd houses that have to be taken into account and will conflict with one another—dealing with the motorway noise, the cricket field, the busy main road, access and safety and all the rest. A lot of issues have to be considered. Under these regulations, it is very likely that that planning application would be determined by officers. There would be no ability, as there is currently, for local councillors, in conjunction with the committee chair and the chief planning officer, to make a decision. There are so many controversial and conflicting issues that that decision is best taken through an open decision-making process in the committee. We ought to be proud of that as a country—that is how we make decisions. It is democracy, and we need to strengthen it, not pull the rug from under it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have to notify the Committee that if Amendments 103ZZA and 103ZZB are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 103ZA by reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 104, but, first, I must declare my interests, as this is the first time I have spoken formally in Committee on this Bill. I am still a farmer and land manager, or at least my family is; I now farm and manage land from the perspective of a retired farmer.
Amendment 104 is very much a probing amendment. I approve of the proposed delegation of planning decisions to a sub-committee or to officers of a local authority. This will give a degree of reliability and constancy in the decision-making process, possibly even a degree of speed, which in the planning system as we currently know it would be in most welcome. The proposed training of planning committees in this context is also welcome. It will, I hope, avoid decision-makers succumbing to parochial interests or, worse still, the views of their immediate social circle, whom they might not want to upset, which I have come across.
Therefore, I was surprised to find national park authorities excluded from these sensible improvements. In my experience, national park authorities are no exception to some of the parochialism and resistance to change that occur elsewhere. If anything, the resistance is greater. Some national park authorities do not have a planning committee, and all planning decisions come before the whole authority, with the inevitable resultant delays and, worse still, greater opportunity for parochial subjectivism.
I would trust trained national park officers to be able to take certain planning decisions in line with both national and locally set policies. Above all, those chief officers have the necessary vision that perceives the national park as being there to benefit both the lives of those who live and work in the park and those of people who visit it. I have always seen national parks as being like a branding that needs an overall vision, which includes everything from transport facilities to better landscape management et al, in order to enhance the lives of the many both inside and outside the park. Without that overall vision, which I believe not everyone who sits on a national park authority committee necessarily has, those national parks will fail to maximise their potential. I just wondered why our national landscapes were excluded from this section of the Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I intend to speak to Amendment 103ZA in my name and to Amendment 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has just spoken. While I intend to reserve my comments more broadly on Clause 51 until group 4, where we will debate whether it stands part, I am astonished that we are in the situation where national park authorities are in effect the only kind of local government that this would not apply to. I say that because no one is directly elected on to a national park authority.
Some of the board members may indeed be elected councillors but, by and large, they are appointed as a proportion and the majority are appointed by the Secretary of State and central government. A great irony of this wider debate is that we are most likely removing ways for locally elected councillors to make determinations, but where the Government have already appointed people, they can carry on. It seems an odd thing in this whole set-up.
I have tabled Amendment 103ZA—as I say, I will get on to the merits of the clause in the next group—because I am concerned that with the pressure of the increasing housing targets that have been imposed on local councils, the pressure about aspects of five-year supply, it will be too easy for officers to simply say they have to go beyond the plan that has already been agreed. As has been set out regularly by Ministers in this debate, the local plan is agreed by local people. It is not really, but at least there is an opportunity for the public to contribute towards that determination and it is then decided and voted on by locally elected councillors, who are therefore accountable to their constituents.
The issue of going beyond the boundary of the local plan is important. I see this happen quite a lot in parts of rural areas where developers take a bit of a chance on trying to keep extending the boundary, including by making housing go beyond the local plan boundary and then trying to say that for economic reasons this should all be approved, even though it has already been through a process. I am concerned about that, and I think officers would be less hesitant to simply brush it aside.
The other issue I am very concerned about is housing density, and I have put my name to an amendment attached to Clause 52 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which will be debated later on in the Bill. One example is part of a town called Felixstowe, in Suffolk, where the previous councils had agreed a pretty ambitious local plan building on greenfield to expand the town in what they perceived to be a controlled way but still making sure that the town was going to be vibrant and sustainable. Within that, they specified a particular housing density for the building of some 2,000 houses. That was to constrain it within the envelope of what was deemed to be land suitable for development. It was about 150 houses per whatever the geographic dimension was to reach 2,000. An application was made for outline planning permission. Developers had indicated that of course they would stick within this housing density, but the officers in their analysis presented to councillors considering the outline planning application anticipated the housing density would really be only about 50 if they took into account the extra bits such as access to nature, sustainable drainage and all the different things. So, there we go—and, by the way, I am pretty sure the officers recommended that they accept that outline planning application, knowing full well that they would not get anywhere near the 2,000 houses that had been allocated to the fields on the outside of Felixstowe.
The consequence of that would be that considerably more land would be needed to build the other houses that were due to be built in that part of the district. My concern is that by not being very specific about housing density—and we will come on to this later—we will end up with a lot more sprawl and issues connected with not having gaps between villages and towns.
The reason I have tabled this amendment is to make sure that, if these regulation-making powers do go through to the Secretary of State, for determinations of planning applications such as that, it really must be down to the elected councillors to be able to determine it—in effect, to go against their own plan that they, or their predecessors, had already voted on to approve. We are already aware of how many decisions are delegated to officers in a routine way that is right, but on these things, where the application is contrary to what had already been agreed in the overall strategic purpose, that must be done by elected councillors, who will be accountable to the wider electorate.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 105 in this group. We are not debating that Clause 51 stand part in this group, but I intend to speak to it regardless, because it should be grouped with this, and it will save me having to make another speech on the same subject in the next group.
I do not object to Clause 51; indeed, I support it. There should be a national scheme of delegation. It is an important mechanism by which some of the planning reform policies being pursued can be reinforced in practice in the decision-making processes in local government and assist in the process of speeding up planning decisions.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington’s amendment. In the 1980s, I was chairman of the development and control committee of the then Lake District Special Planning Board, and I can see no reason why those kinds of organisations should not be treated exactly the same as the others on the inherent merits of what is being proposed and what the authority members wish to occur. I was the Secretary of State-appointed member of the Lake District Special Planning Board. It occurred to me then that that was rather analogous to being a Member of your Lordships’ House as a life Peer—but, of course, I would not understand that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this set of amendments, particularly Amendment 135HZE, which I think my noble friend is just about to wrap up on.
Noble Lords will recall that I have been a councillor and sat on a local planning committee for 23 years; I was the leader for 17 years. It was one of my privileges to appoint the committee and choose the chairman. I always explained to my members that the purpose of planning was not an administrative function that existed as an end in itself—although this Bill sometimes treats it as if it were so—but to arbitrate between the private interests of the applicant and the public interest. I use the word “arbitrate” purposefully, because people who sit on a planning committee have a difficult job. They must weigh up so much conflicting information within an adversarial system and, ultimately, either the proposer or objector wins.
Much of this Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are blockers of development and that the ranks of officials will not rest until every square inch of our nation is concreted over. But this is nonsense. The premise is that officials bring none of their prejudices to bear, but that is simply not true. We have Natural England, which leaves no stone unturned in blocking development. We have the railways, which ballast every proposal with ridiculous costs, such as £5 million for a footbridge to cross between two platforms. We have the highways authorities, which tie themselves in knots under the misdirection that personal transport outside development boundaries is unsustainable. That is before all the other bad actors in many other quangos that increasingly advance their own narrow self-interests rather than the public interest.
I do not deny the importance of some of their representations, but the problem with these quangos is that they all claim a veto—it is their way or no way. It is from these vetoes that we have got the £100 million bat bridge, to which I expect my noble friend Lord Howard may refer. It is from these vetoes that we get this mitigating trade in natterjack newts or whatever they are, organisms that are rare in Europe but commonplace in every English village pond. And then of course there is the insanity of nutrient neutrality, as if building a bungalow in Bristol is going to somehow clean up the River Wensum.
Given the way planning works, in many cases it takes only one of these vetoes from just one of the statutory consultees to block the entire proposal. That is especially the case when officers advise members to refuse an otherwise acceptable proposal on the overly precautionary grounds that an adverse decision could be grounds for appeal or expensive judicial review. We need the planning committee to cut through the undergrowth, and to stop looking over their shoulder and being fearful of challenge.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Banner, who is not in his place, on his report in which he made several recommendations. But those will count for nothing if there is nobody without the mandate, duty and courage to get those applications to committee. In my experience, it is the committees populated by the accountable councillors that do more to get Britain building than the faceless dead hand of the state quangos.
We need elected people who know a self-serving veto or spurious objection when they see one. We need people on the ground who know the importance of building homes, economies and places that enhance communities to arbitrate those competing interests. That is why this amendment is so welcome and necessary. It is absolutely right that the chair of the planning committee, working with the senior planner, should be able to revisit otherwise fatal objections to get that balance, to enable the local champions who populate those committees to take all the evidence into account, to listen carefully to objections, to balance the private and public interest and to get Britain building, and not pander to the self-serving quangos sometimes interested only in pursuing their own ideologies to the exclusion of all else.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 135HZF and to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook’s Amendments 103A and 103B before addressing the other amendments in this group.
Local democratic accountability must be protected. Local people should have a say in the decisions that affect their daily lives. These amendments seek to ensure planning decisions remain the remit of elected councils which are accountable to their communities. It is important that large or controversial applications should be considered through local debate so that all views are sufficiently represented.
Delegation of decision-making to unelected planning officers not only deprives local people of their democratic voice but compromises the entire planning framework. Public planning committees allow for transparent and easily accessible forums for residents, ensuring that their voice is heard in the planning process. Enforced delegation of important planning decisions or controversial ones would make the whole process more opaque, weaken community engagement and disfranchise those most affected by the decisions. With a loss of local trust in the whole planning system, how do the Government plan to maintain community engagement and trust in the planning system if they are not involved?
By ensuring the Secretary of State does not have sweeping powers of delegation, local autonomy would be preserved, empowering those best equipped to make decisions about their local community. Amendments 103A and 103B question the Government’s decision to make guidance on the scope, size and composition of the national scheme, subject to delegation rather than primary legislation.
Amendment 135HZE enshrines the right for an application to be determined by a planning committee where there are objections to the application and both the head of planning—or, potentially, the chief planner—and the chair of the planning committee have agreed that these are on valid planning grounds, which is best practice, currently. While some have raised the risk of spurious arguments causing delays, the above protections and subsequent amendments in my name on finality should address these concerns, enabling us to get on with housing delivery while retaining the democratic voice. This is the right balance.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Lansley and Lord Cameron, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Fuller, for their contributions to this discussion. This group of amendments relates to Clause 51 on the national scheme of delegation, which was debated extensively in the other place and during Second Reading in this House.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her recognition of the need to develop greater consistency and equity in the planning process. Of course, the other motivation is to ensure that councillors can focus their attention both on local plans, where they can really make a difference to place-shaping, and on those local applications that genuinely benefit from their input. Having been a councillor for 27 years, sitting on the planning committee listening to a two-hour debate on whether a fence should be four feet high or five feet high, I think there is a good case for focusing attention on what matters.
I turn first to Amendments 103A and 103B. I understand that these are probing amendments to understand the rationale for the Secretary of State’s powers to issue guidance on the national scheme of delegation and composition of planning committees and why they are not subject to the regulatory procedures which can be scrutinised by Parliament rather than setting it out in primary legislation itself. These powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance are auxiliary to the main powers to make regulations about the national scheme of delegation and the composition of planning committees. The regulations will set out the key requirements and the guidance will supplement them.
As many of us know, the planning system is very complex and nuanced, and there are often calls for clear guidance to complement planning regulations. In line with other powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance within the planning system, we do not propose to make this guidance subject to regulatory procedures. However, there is a clear requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on the guidance along with regulations before reissuing it. This enables all stakeholders, including local planning authorities, to comment and feed into the draft guidance.
On Amendment 104 from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, he asked about national parks authorities—which includes the Broads Authority. They are a special class of local planning authority which make planning decisions for their area. Due to the different governance arrangements and the nature of development in these areas, they were deliberately excluded from the national scheme of delegation provisions, which applies only to conventional local planning authorities. Development corporations and Homes England, when acting as the local planning authority, were also excluded for similar reasons. The justification for intervention in the reform of committees includes creating a more consistent approach to applications for housing development and delivering more predictable outcomes in the planning system in order to achieve growth and support the delivery of 1.5 million homes. There is less imperative to intervene in national park authorities, where we do not envisage large-scale housing developments.
Amendment 105 seeks to make regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure, as just commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I am not convinced that this amendment is needed. It is common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report and has not raised any concerns about either this power or the proposed procedure. Of course, this does not mean there will be no further scrutiny of the proposed regulations. We have included a safeguard in the Bill to require the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals to ensure that they will work effectively in practice.
Just to pick up the point the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made on NDMPs, it is the intention to publish the NDMPs—I am going to say “in due course”; he knows I do not like that expression, but that is where we are—and I will follow up in writing to him about whether these will automatically be delegated. I think that is under consideration, but I will respond to him in writing on that. However, we do hope to publish them as soon as possible.
I will address Amendment 103ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, together as they both deal with the types of application which should go to committee. Taking Amendment 103ZA first, it would require applications for development not included in the local plan, or for a housing density lower than that specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. The Government also want to ensure that the right development happens in the right areas, and our brownfield-first policy is designed to achieve that. However, there are many applications involved in development which do not conform with a local plan. That does not mean they are all controversial—many are not—and therefore I do not believe that they all need to be considered by committee.
Amendments 135HZE and 135HZF from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, deal with whether certain types of applications should go to committee or not. Taking Amendment 135HZE first, as the noble Lord will know, it is very common for there to be valid planning objections to an application. This amendment would give free rein to committee chairs and chief planning officers to take a great many more applications to committee. As such, it would undermine the whole purpose of the national scheme of delegation, and therefore the Government cannot support it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for allowing me to interrupt. I am slightly curious: the Government trust a planning officer to make a decision on something, but they do not trust them to determine whether there is a genuinely valid objection to an application? I find that slightly curious.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We trust planning officers, but we do not want to undermine that scheme of delegation.
Amendment 135HZF seeks to ensure that any applications by the council itself or any of its employees or councillors where there are no objections do not need to go to committee. While I understand the noble Lord’s reasons for tabling such an amendment, I again think that this is a matter best dealt with in the regulations rather than in the Bill. Indeed, the recent technical consultation on planning committees sought views on the treatment of such applications. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that we will consider his suggestion alongside the formal responses to that consultation.
To conclude, I assure noble Lords once again that Clause 51 is not about taking away local democratic oversight. It is about improving the system to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities and to give them the time to focus their attention where it really matters.
I now turn to a series of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seek to remove the requirement to create regulations needed for the framework for a mandatory national scheme of delegation and would replace this requirement with a power to make statutory guidance. They would also remove the ability for the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees.
The Government have been very clear: we want to see a national scheme of delegation introduced to ensure greater certainty across the country and to speed up decision-making to support the delivery of 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. I emphasise that these reforms are a real priority for this Government. We need to ensure that the legal framework for the national scheme of delegation is robust and clear, and that is why we need to legislate for it through regulations. Statutory guidance is not sufficient to provide the certainty and consistency that we want to see.
I also disagree that we should not legislate to control the size and composition of planning committees. I fully accept that many planning committees have slimmed down in recent years and are nearer the optimal size for effective engagement and debate. However, there are still too many which are unwieldy, undermining the quality of decision-making. We firmly believe that there remains a strong case to have powers to regulate the committees’ size and composition. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate about the practicalities of planning application decision-making. I thought the most telling point that the Minister made was in her introductory remarks, when she said that the Government want councillors to focus on local plan making. Local plan making is an absolutely vital building block to planning decision-making, because it sets the local policies within the framework of the National Planning Policy Framework, and it sets out and, in theory, agrees sites for development by business, commerce or for housing—or institutions of various sorts.
In my long time as a local councillor, I have taken through, I think, three or four local plan-making processes, and all my experience tells me that it is very difficult to get local people to engage in the theory of site allocation and what it will mean for them. And that is why I have made the case I have today. Yes, local plans are vital and set the foundations for a plan and for place making for an area, but, equally, we need the flexibility within that for local people to have their say. If local people do not have their say, that essential safeguard, that essential safety valve of an open public discussion about an issue which is controversial, will be taken away, to the detriment of local democracy and national democracy.
However, with those points, and thanking everybody who has contributed to the debate, because it has been a good one, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have degrouped the Clause 51 stand part notice to facilitate an urgent debate on issues that have come to a head over the Summer Recess—namely, local community engagement on asylum hotels and media briefings from the Government in respect of environmental regulations. As such, I will not elaborate much further on Clause 51, given that most of the relevant issues have been debated on a previous group.
I begin by addressing the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on bat protections. Without pre-empting his argument, I believe his amendment was born out of the report in the Times on 17 August 2025 that the Chancellor is considering reforms to change the rules on nature protections in respect of bats and newts. My noble friend will surely set out the case for his amendment, but this Bill is an opportunity to deliver the reforms we need to unlock housing. If the Government hope to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, as they have promised, they cannot afford to wait for a second planning Bill for these reforms.
I now turn to the issue of asylum hotels and to Amendments 135HZB to 135HZD, 360A and 360B in my name. At their core, these amendments are about fairness, accountability and democratic consent. They seek to give local communities and planning authorities the voice and the agency they currently lack. Too often, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored. We saw this most recently in Epping, where anger spilled on to the streets only after the decision had already been taken.
The principle is simple. Changing the use of a hotel or an HMO, a house in multiple occupation, to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use under planning law. That would mean that planning permission is required, just as it would be for a significant change of use or major building works. This change matters for two reasons. First, it would ensure that local people are consulted through the normal planning process before hotels or shared housing are converted for this purpose. Communities deserve a say in decisions that affect their neighbourhoods. Secondly, it would resolve the current legal uncertainty highlighted by the Bell Hotel case, where the courts have been asked to consider whether an injunction should apply. The Court of Appeal ruling on the Bell Hotel was not a decision on whether planning permission was required. Rather, it was a decision on the merits of an interim injunction, which is a particular type of urgent planning enforcement.
Case law and planning decisions on both sides have accepted that individual hotels did or did not require planning permission when they changed into asylum hostels. In the absence of any MHCLG planning policy, the practical result is uncertainty for councils, uncertainty for residents and uncertainty for local businesses. It would be far better if there were a clear set of rules, with individual councils determining planning applications on their merits with due process, rather than councils and courts retrospectively enforcing vague laws.
Above all, these amendments are about trust—trust between government and local communities, trust that local voices will not be bypassed and trust that decisions with such profound social consequences will be taken openly and not forced on people with no notice and no consultation. I hope that noble Lords on the Benches opposite agree.
The choice before us could not be clearer: either we stand with local communities that want a fair and reasonable voice on how and where asylum accommodation is provided, or we allow the current system of central diktat and imposed asylum hotels to continue. These amendments are targeted, proportionate and urgently needed. They offer a sensible way forward that balances compassion with consent and national responsibility with local accountability. The country is watching us. I hope that the Minister takes these amendments forward and that the Government reconsider their position of placing the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of our local people. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 346DB in my name is a probing amendment to debate what can be done to get rid of the absurd rules relating to bats—I am resisting calling them “batty”. The legislation is complex, but that does not alter the need for something to be done to get rid of the present insanity.
There are no bats in the United Kingdom of the type that is threatened with extinction, so there is no harm or danger to them; you cannot damage something that does not exist. There are some types that are close to being endangered, but there are abundant quantities of these types in other countries throughout the world. If the existing legislation were got rid of, there would be no danger to the world’s bat population. In short, legislation to preserve bats is unnecessary.
I will give two examples of the absurdities caused by the present legislation. Your Lordships will have read of the first, which my noble friend Lord Fuller referred to—the £100 million bat tunnel built during the construction of HS2. At a time of appalling government finances, it is scarcely credible to spend £100 million in this way.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend realise that we could have had 10 front doors for that price?
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I am very grateful for the intervention. It makes the world of Alice in Wonderland look normal and sensible, and that also applies to the front door.
My second example is on a smaller scale. With the support and blessing of English Heritage, I recently purchased and pulled down a particularly ugly and inappropriate 1960s chalet-style house adjacent to Castle Rising Castle, which is a listed monument, in order to replace the horror with cottages built in the traditional local stone. This was a project for the greater good that, fingers crossed, might have just broken even. That was before the bat people got involved.
An inspection took place to check whether there was any trace of bats in the house. There was no evidence of bats, but that was not good enough for the bat people. I was made to take off the roof, tile by tile, so that a bat person could inspect each tile as it was taken off. This was despite the inspection having shown there was no trace of bats. To get to the roof in safety, the building had to be scaffolded, an absurdity for something about to be pulled down. It then took six men four weeks to remove each tile and show it to the bat person before the tile could be thrown away. Using machinery already on site would have taken one man half a day. I ask your Lordships: what sanity can there be in carrying on in this manner?
I have not even started on what the archaeologist wanted. I was made to dig down three metres, a metre below the two-metre foundations that were planned. At all stages, this had to be inspected by an archaeologist, with men and machinery having to wait for the archaeologist to find time. Your Lordships can guess what that cost.
As a country, we have managed to get to a situation where the greater good is being destroyed by the antics of minority interests, which can look at things only from their own—in many cases laudable, maybe, but very narrow—perspectives. How can any Government expect houses to be built with the enormous difficulties that builders have to contend with? I have mentioned only two. Let us start on the road to sanity by repealing all legislation relating to the preservation of the bat population. They will not disappear; they will still be around centuries after the legislation has been repealed.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I offer some views on the legal effects that Amendments 135HZB and 135HZC, on asylum hotels and asylum HMOs, would achieve, in particular to develop the point made by my noble friend Lady Scott on the current legal uncertainty relating to those kinds of accommodation. Broadly speaking, under the planning Acts, planning permission is required for development. Development is defined in Section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as including
“the making of any material change in the use of”
the land or building in question.
As my noble friend Lady Scott has outlined, the current case law in relation to this kind of accommodation is that whether the change of use of a hotel to accommodation for asylum seekers is a material change of use is a matter of fact and degree in the particular circumstances of each case. There is no hard and fast rule. That, in turn, breaks down to two questions. Has there been a change of use, from hotel to what normally is sought to be characterised as a hostel for asylum seekers? If there has, is that use material in planning terms, having regard to the particular circumstances and effects?
The difficulty with that situation is that, as my noble friend said, it generates considerable uncertainty for all stakeholders. It creates uncertainty for the commercial party behind the hotel. Is the investment that they intend to make—in converting the hotel and making it fit for this kind of accommodation—at risk without obtaining planning permission or a certificate of lawfulness guaranteeing that permission is not needed? There is uncertainty for the local planning authority. Does it enforce, with the potential risk of enormous costs—potentially millions of pounds in a particular case—not necessarily knowing what the outcome of that would be? If it does not, has it turned a blind eye to something which is illegal? There are really difficult issues there. It is quite hard to advise local authorities in those situations which side of the line they are on, because it is so evaluative and fact sensitive.
There is obviously uncertainty for the public in question about what is going on in their area. There is, dare I say, quite possibly also uncertainty for the Home Office in understanding the planning status of asylum accommodation within this country. These amendments would provide clarity by drawing a clear line in the sand that this kind of accommodation requires planning permission, with the local consultation that goes with, so that everybody knows where they stand, thereby eliminating the current ambiguity.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I strongly support my noble friend Lady Scott’s amendments, particularly the one in which she requires the asylum provisions to be implemented immediately on the passing of the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend who, by gripping this, demonstrates the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in, in direct contrast to the ponderous approach from a Government, who appear to give greater weight to the process of international law than the well-being of our settled populations.
This is an infrastructure Bill. I alight on a simple truth that hotels are an essential part of an area’s economic infrastructure. Their importance exceeds the turnover of the business and the payroll for the cooks and cleaners behind the scenes and the front of house staff. Hotels accommodate more than weekend tourists. They enable commercial travellers to visit distant customers, provide shelter for tradesmen working on local building sites away from the main base, and drive a huge multiplier effect in holiday hotpots and conference cities. Local restaurants, tourist attractions, coach operators, florists and artisan food chains all benefit. Hotels are a huge economic driver.
If you take away the liquidity in accommodation that hotels provide, local economies are damaged, especially in rural market towns that might only be able to sustain a single coaching inn. This is a matter of public interest. In the pursuit of growth, it is a matter of national interest. So, we cannot and must not carelessly allow the conversion of hotels into hostels after behind-closed-doors under-the-counter deals between the Home Office and local landlords. I do not blame the owners for entertaining these blandishments, but we cannot allow ourselves to sleepwalk into a situation where these decisions are taken—a connivance between the Home Office and the investors behind the hotels—over the heads of local people, whose justifiable concerns are swept aside and airbrushed away. That just will not do.
A friend of mine who operates a small seasonal seaside hotel with 29 rooms has been offered £40,000 per month for 12 months of the year for three years—£1.5 million in aggregate—for a property that might otherwise have achieved at best £500,000 at auction. She was then offered a fully expensed refurbishment at the end, while having to fire all her staff, who were already costing more because of the national insurance increases. She has not taken the bait, but others have. The contracts and values here are madness. They are economically illiterate. It is distorting whole economies with perverse incentives. These deals are being done right under our noses.
As my noble friend Lord Banner said, the conversion from a hotel to a hostel is not just planning semantics. People staying in hostels have no freedom to choose their accommodation. They stay for months, not days. They are required to check-in with a commissar each night. They share rooms with people they do not know. They do not pay the bill. They have nothing to do but wait. There are many other differences between them—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he feel a sense of humility given that, by 2023, a peak of 400 asylum hotels had been reached under the previous Government?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
By June 2024, that had gone down to 213. At the moment, there are 2,500 more asylum seekers in those hotels than there were when the Government changed.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I will answer the noble Lord’s question directly, because this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The points I have just made—
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
Will the noble Lord clarify the point? In particular, the argument before us is that some hotels in some places are not suitable for asylum seekers. The previous Conservative Government recognised this point and closed the Bell Hotel in Epping in April 2024. I know because I asked them to do so, and they did so taking into account the opinions and sensitivities of local people, which have been ignored by the current Government.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Since the noble Baroness provokes me to return to the question, I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that 400 hotels were in use for asylum seekers in 2023 and that the reduction that took place was met with no change in asylum law that enabled the new Government to address the situation in a constructive way?
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friends for answering some of the technical questions for me. I was not aware of the numbers, but I am better apprised now. The point I was trying to make is twofold. First, I am trying to draw out the distinction between a hotel, a hostel and an HMO. In so doing, I am only repeating arguments that were made in the judgment referred to by my noble friend—the interim injunction in the case of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The noble Lord may wish to throw mud in my eyes, but I am only repeating the authorised judgment of the Court of Appeal and the points that were raised there, and I take no criticism for doing so. It is a matter of public record. There are many of my learned friends in this Committee, including my noble friend sitting to the side of me, and if I have erred in what I have just said, I am sure it will come up.
The point is, and the noble Lord gives me the opportunity to say so, that the movement of a hotel into a hostel is a material change of use for the reasons I just gave. The people who are staying there are not the sort of guests who pay their way and are there for a few days. They are mandated to be there by the state. That is the point we need to make. That is a material change of use. It is plain and simple. There is no denying it. As we have just heard from my noble friend, the planning system exists not just to regulate those changes in use but to arbitrate between the private interests of the hotel owner and the public interest. Let us be clear: there is no denying the public interest in this matter.
I want to make the distinction between the interim provision of accommodation for helping whole family units get back on their feet and the circumstance where that situation morphs in the building into the provision of bedrooms for single, mostly male, economic migrants. The conversion of a hotel to an HMO for the use of family groups is a bit of a lottery that shapeshifts with time. There are areas where a hotel might be converted into an HMO under permitted development rules—that is common—and thence separately from an HMO into a hostel. I want to paint a picture where a hotel has been converted into an HMO for family groups under permitted development but then without notice has flipped into a hostel when the Home Office decides to disperse families out and move in single, unrelated migrants. That is not just a theoretical possibility. It nearly happened in Diss in South Norfolk where I used to be the leader. In that town, a whole generation ago, arms were outstretched to welcome the Vietnamese boat people. Demonstrating that humility, under my leadership, the local council worked to welcome the largest group of Ukrainians in our county. More recently, migrant families—again, under my leadership—settled into a hotel which has, in effect, become an HMO. Please do not suggest that I have any ulterior motive; I have done my bit. Not only that but I have done my bit to smooth over some of the difficulties that certain people on social media and elsewhere have tried to make. You invite me to make these points.
In July—I am no longer the leader now I have taken my place in your Lordships’ House—the Home Office announced without notice that the families that had become settled would be dispersed, meaning that 42 children were going to be removed from the school roll just a few weeks before the start of the new school year. Their families would be taken away from the local GP practice and from the networks that they had created among themselves and with the local community, together with the infrastructure that had been wrapped around them. Again, something put in under the budget that I set was to be removed. No wonder local people were cross. They could see the injustice in that approach. If there was a crime, it was from the Home Office, which thought that sort of behaviour was acceptable. But we were lucky, because it had not been four years since the families were initially welcomed, so the council was able to issue a stop notice to prevent the forced removal of those family groups.
Elsewhere, with the slippery slope from moving from hotel to hostel, a stop notice cannot be issued. That is why I completely support the amendment which would stop the limit on stop notices so that there is no sleepwalking into a system where a hotel goes to an HMO then to a hostel without due process. We should put local people at the heart of decision-making and prevent those with an axe to grind claiming that they do not have a say, which is the source of the community tensions we seek to stop. If they do not have their say, they should just not be smeared as far right activists for expressing proper concerns. This problem has been created by national politicians, but local people need to be heard.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
Given how much business we still have to get through today, I wonder whether the noble Lord would very kindly observe the advisory time that is given to speeches?
Lord Fuller (Con)
The noble Baroness will know that I was interrupted on more than one occasion. I am on my last 50 words, so we are going to get there. Normally, interventions from other parties do not count against the time. I will take advice from the clerks if necessary.
This problem is created by national politicians, but local people need to be heard and to be part of the solution. We need to recognise that, in this infrastructure Bill above all, we should be building economic infrastructure and community spirit. We do not do that by removing hotels from circulation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the strongest possible Green group opposition to all these amendments. I do that to make sure that the breadth of opposition across your Lordships’ Committee is demonstrated. I hope that we are going to hear very strong opposition from the Government Front Bench too, but I cannot be sure of that, so I want to put this on the record.
I will start with the rather oddly grouped amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, about bats. The noble Lord characterised bats as a minority interest, but I hope that I am going demonstrate why they are not. I begin with a study published in Science journal on 6 September last year about what has happened in the United States of America in certain areas where all the bats have been wiped out by white nose disease. In those areas—it is a natural experiment—the rate of infant mortality has increased significantly. This looks very strange. How can it be? How is the health of newborn babies and bats related? Well, with the bats gone, insect populations have risen enormously. Then, farmers have sprayed 30% more pesticide, and that pesticide is linked to infant deaths. When I talk about this study, I am usually focusing on pesticide use, but in this case, there is an important illustration of a point we were discussing in an earlier group of amendments about one health—human, environmental and animal health are intimately interrelated.
I say with the greatest of respect that, from the noble Lord’s own Benches, there was a suggestion that there should be education about ecosystems for members of the Government and civil servants—maybe we need that right across the House, because ecosystems, including bats, are crucial to the health of all of us. We are one of the most nature-depleted countries on this planet and that is bad for human health.
I come now to the other set of amendments in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I was talking, on that last amendment, about the health of our society. My reaction to these amendments is about the nature of our society. What kind of country are we? Changing our planning law by creating a special use category for asylum seekers is entirely inappropriate and dangerous. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that these amendments are “targeted”—absolutely too right they are. That is very evident and disturbing.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, it is interesting to hear what the noble Baroness has just said. Of course, I am sure we must all agree with her about the inappropriateness of hotels for asylum seekers to use as long-term accommodation. I am sure there is widespread agreement on that, but she seems to be ignoring the fact that this amendment clarifies, as the noble Lord, Lord Banner, most carefully and accurately explained, a degree of uncertainty in the current law that is causing considerable difficulties.
I must not pretend that I am not talking about Epping and I suppose I have to declare an interest because I live very close to the Bell Hotel and I represented the constituency in the other place for 27 years. I can tell the noble Baroness who has just spoken that the opinions and feelings of local people are important in planning decisions. The noble Baroness who has proposed Amendment 135HZB is trying to clarify the situation so that we do not have future situations like the one that has developed in the small town of Epping, where people are coming from all over the country every Thursday and Sunday to make their voices heard in a way that is inappropriate and unsuitable. When a situation such as that develops, it is incumbent on the Government of the day and the legislature to take action to try to make sure that it does not happen in future and to learn from the facts unfolding before us right now in real time.
The noble Baroness has brought forward this amendment and my noble friends have brought forward other amendments in this group to try to help the Government to clarify the situation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will look at this group in that light and that, rather than just sticking to the brief, which is “Do not accept any amendments”, she will be able to consider that the world changes all the time and that, in recent times, the world has changed as far as the way in which we look after asylum seekers is concerned, because there are far more. It does not matter when the problem started or who was in government at that time; what matters is what we do now as a legislature. That is our duty and responsibility. We have the chance today to enact this amendment, which would alleviate the situation and mean that the opinions and sensitivities of local people are taken into consideration in important planning decisions. That is not too much to ask of a democratically elected Government.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry, but the past does matter. It is incredible to me that the party in opposition filled up 400 hotels with asylum seekers, did not think ahead about these issues and then complains about it once the horse has bolted. That is pretty shameful and I think the culpability is on my right rather than opposite.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I contribute briefly to this debate to strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench in her excellent amendments, both in respect of houses in multiple occupation and of hotels being converted to hostels.
I mention the specific case, in my own former constituency of Peterborough, of the Dragonfly Hotel in the west of Peterborough, which is a very pleasant residential area. Last November, without any consultation, the Home Office moved in 146—disproportionately male—asylum seekers. I raised the issue with the Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, earlier this year and he gave an undertaking that, henceforth, there would be better communication. Even the Labour Members of Parliament for the Peterborough area had cause to criticise the process of moving—decanting—those asylum seekers into the Dragonfly Hotel. The two Labour MPs, Sam Carling of North West Cambridgeshire and Andrew Pakes of Peterborough, said that
“the Dragonfly is the wrong hotel, in the wrong location and bad for Peterborough and nearby residents”.
There has been no indication of when it will cease to be used. They went on:
“We are a welcoming city but are playing more than our part already”.
The context of that is that there had been no attempt to speak to the Labour-led city council, adult social services, children’s services, the police or NHS primary care.
The context that we need to think about is that, hitherto, the planning process has been well recognised as a form of governance that works in this country. We have local development plans, we have county structure plans and—for those who really have nothing better to do with their time—we have mineral plans. I know that this is all meat and drink to my noble friend Lord Banner. The point is that it is a well-established idea that, where there is significant change in planning and development, particularly in urban development, there is a process of proper consultation between stakeholders and those affected. It might be informal discussions between planning officers and local residents or it might be a formal committee, but there is a process where people are invited to comment.
With any decision to significantly change and impact the residential amenity of a local area and people’s quality of life in that area, particularly where—as in the case of the Bell Hotel—there are a significant number of schools and young people in the area, there will be some legitimate concerns. No one is saying that all asylum seekers are criminals or are likely to be criminals but, when you bring forward very significant local change, you will cause concern.
I think a form of governance, a piece of primary legislation that obliges that information to be put in the public domain, is sensible and would prevent people listening to extreme points of view in pursuit of their particular political agenda. That is why I think that this amendment is sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, can criticise as much as he likes. Let us hear the Liberal Democrats’ view on this and what they would do. It is very easy to criticise and put it on a focus leaflet in the opportunistic way that the Liberal Democrats do; it is much tougher, as this Government are finding and the previous Government found, to be in government, because politics is to choose and to make tough decisions—something that the Liberal Democrats are unfortunately not very used to.
My noble friend Lady Scott makes a very sensible point about accountability, transparency and clarity in the local community. If in future we are to avoid the social dislocation, violence and anger that we have seen in Epping Forest in the last few months, transparency will do that. It will allow people to have their say. It will allow their elected representatives to have an opportunity to properly represent them and ventilate their concerns, and I think that will be all to the good. The Government would be wise to do it, because they are now looking at some policies that we would have pursued. I think they are trying to tackle this issue in a sincere way. We on this side are offering these amendments as a way to ameliorate the issues because we know it is necessary so to do.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, if I may return briefly to the main subject of bats, I do not at all agree with my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising that bats are unimportant. They are absolutely part of nature. Nature in this country is hugely depleted and we need a lot more bats, but the lesson I draw from his story is that for all his huge expenditure, no bats benefited whatever. Nothing that he was made to do benefited bats in any way whatever. It is an entirely wrong-headed way of going about things. What we want is a lot more bats. If we had made my noble friend pay a few thousand pounds to make spaces for bats elsewhere in his estate, I am sure he would have done so with pleasure.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
There is no need. The castle provides a home to endless bats.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I think the Government recognise this both in the later parts of this Bill and indeed in what they have done with offshore wind. They recognise that offshore wind will kill a number of sea-birds and that compensation must be made for that.
What we need in this country is a lot more nature. That will take a good chunk of money. It is ridiculous to have a system that just spaffs that money away. We ought to be taking the opportunity of bats, which are pretty mobile creatures. In nature, bats live in cracks in trees. Trees fall down all the time and the bats just move home. We are worrying about bats in a completely ridiculous way. We are wasting huge sums of money and we must stop.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Clause 51 may look innocuous, but I am concerned that it is removing the effect of democracy. National democracy is imposing its will against the will of the local people. I was reflecting on when in 2013 I was on the Bill Committee for the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, now Act. The House of Commons Committee sat for seven days on a Bill of 28 clauses. This Bill went through the Commons in seven days, with 97 clauses being considered. That is why it is important that this House takes the appropriate time. Interestingly, back then the Lords sat for only five days on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, with the Commons having done a much more thorough job, and that is something for us to think about.
On Clause 51, I was struck by what the Minister said to me on the previous group when I had specifically singled out issues that went against the local plan. The Government’s guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on GOV.UK specifically says that controversial decisions should be done by planning committee and that the best way for councillors and local communities to be involved is in the creation of the local plan—I am paraphrasing slightly. Local plans are not created every four years—sometimes it feels as if they take more than four years to create, although they should not—so I was somewhat surprised when the Minister said that planning applications not in line with the local plan are not necessarily always controversial, so we should not worry about them and allow officers to make that decision. I would love to hear some examples of planning applications that are not consistent with the local plan and have not then been controversial.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
Would the noble Baroness accept that even a small number of illegal immigrants in a tiny village can have as much effect as a larger number in an urban area?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
It is reflective of what is proportionate to the local community. My noble friend Lord Framlingham will be aware of the legal judgments of the past few years where some large-scale accommodation sites were deemed unlawful. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough said, the current Government are trying to work this out and balance it as well. It is not a straightforward action, so I will not criticise them for it. However, it is certainly valid to have this debate about whether these hotels need a separate planning class, recognising the decision that was made last week in the Court of Appeal.
Houses in multiple occupation require both planning permission and a licence. I do not want us to get into the situation of having to license hotels. However, HMOs have both because the accommodation is being used in a perhaps non-traditional way compared to its original intention. Therefore, extra conditions are put on by the local council or there is deliberate consideration, recognising the change in impact that the transfer of traditional uses of accommodation to others can have on the local community. Therefore, while I expect that the Government will probably brush this aside, it is important to understand the temperature, but also what we have done in the past to recognise when things have changed significantly, in order to make sure that decisions are made carefully, considerately and competently when addressing this type of situation.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the sheer hypocrisy of those on the Conservative Benches seems to know no bounds. As we have heard, it was in 2020 that this scale and number of hotels being used for asylum seekers began in earnest. It seems that it has taken five years for Members on the Conservative Benches to come to the conclusion that it may have been necessary for the use of these hotels to require planning consent. What on earth has triggered their sudden interest in planning issues for hotels harbouring asylum seekers? I am struggling to think what the issue could be. What I do know—
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I will give the noble Baroness one brief answer to her question. An asylum seeker who was living at the Bell Hotel in Epping has been found guilty of the sexual assault of a young girl. That is just one small reason.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, there were 400 hotels—we have heard from my noble friend Lady Coffey the reasons for that. But in 2024, just before we left government, we were down to 213 hotels. By now, if we were still in government, we would not have any hotels; we were working the number down. It would have helped if the Government opposite, when they first came into power, supported the deterrent that we were going to have—we would then not have the problem.
Lord Teverson (LD)
That was a somewhat desperate contribution—seriously so.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
The intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, seemed to distance where somebody lives from their behaviours. The intervention she made was irrelevant. The fact is that the previous Conservative Government started using hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers and made no effort to increase the speed of assessment for those asylum seekers, so that they could have certainty in their lives and local accommodation would not be put under undue stress. It was not only a failure of public policy by the previous Government; it was inhumane. It surprised me that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for whom I have high regard, has seen fit to bring these amendments. It is out of character for her to do so. Perhaps on later reflection, she will regret bringing them.
Lord Fuller (Con)
This is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—the opportunity to have this sort of wider debate on asylum, borders and infrastructure was yesterday with the borders and asylum Bill. What we are trying to do here is focus on the very narrow point about when there is a change in the planning status. As my noble friend said, when there is development, should the rules that cover planning and development be engaged and, if so, to what extent? I think my noble friend’s amendments—I am sure she will say something aligned with this when she winds up—would establish the principle that, when development happens, we cannot just pick and choose which bits are subject to planning law and which are not. When development happens, local people should be able to have their say.
It pains me to do so, but I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, directly: is it her position that local people should not have a say when development happens and there is a material change of use, either from a hotel to an HMO or from an HMO to a hostel? If it is, we need to know.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord to get to the point of his question.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I will continue. Why has it taken five years for the Conservatives to wake up to the fact, as they seem to think now, there is a principled planning issue associated with using hotels for temporary accommodation for asylum seekers? That is the question.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
No, I am not taking any further interventions.
The failure of this approach is that, if hotels are not used, what other temporary accommodation is going to be used for asylum seekers? That is where we are with the attempt made by these amendments.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, as this debate has progressed, there has been increased heat and perhaps a commensurate decrease in focus on some of the issues that were raised. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I chose my own words extremely carefully when I outlined my legal views on the consequence of these amendments.
I reiterate that one of the key issues of the status quo is the uncertainty due to the fact that currently, there are no bright lines as to whether a change from hotel use to asylum accommodation or an asylum HMO is or is not always a material change of use. There is an advantage in having certainty one way or the other, and I am very deliberately not expressing a view on which way or the other it should be. It is simply that the ambiguity is deeply unsatisfactory. I stress that the extent of that ambiguity has increased in recent years, months and days. The case law—not just in the Epping case, but in earlier judgments by Mr Justice Holgate, which were earlier in the High Court concerning Great Yarmouth and other locations—has developed in such a way that the uncertainty has got greater, which has exacerbated the problem. Very respectfully, I invite any remaining speakers to deal with that point objectively and in a focused and unheated manner.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, who brings to this House a greater knowledge of planning law than the rest of us added together. It is absolutely right that there is uncertainty, and the uncertainty should be resolved by the Government having a look at whether the changes that he has suggested need to be made, not by the amendments that have been moved. What we have heard this afternoon sounded much more like the other place in action, where constituency issues have been brought to bear to try and deal with what really ought to be rational arguments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Well, well, my Lords. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments and for notifying us of her intent, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to oppose that Clause 51 stand part. I will turn to the notice of opposition first. I was tempted to dive straight in to the other amendments, but I will come to those in a moment.
Clause 51 will give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions. This will set out which planning functions should be decided by officers and which should be decided by planning committees. It will also give the Secretary of State the power to set out requirements around the size and composition of planning committees. I am aware that some view these powers as an erosion of local democracy. I cannot stress enough that this is absolutely not the Government’s intention.
We recognise and value the vital role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions on what and where to build are shaped by their communities, and we know that most committees make fair and well-informed decisions most of the time—there are, of course, exceptions to that rule—but we believe there are issues around the operation of planning committees that we need to address. These include: a lack of clarity and consistency across the country on which applications will be determined by committee; too much time spent considering applications that are compliant with the local plan or considering niche technical details, such as the one-foot fence height difference that I referred to earlier, including post-permission matters that are best dealt with by professional officers; and a lack of transparency of committee decisions and their consequences.
Clause 51 is aimed at tackling these issues and ensuring that planning committees can operate more effectively. It is intended to allow committees to focus on the applications that really need their input and that matter most to their communities. Together with the mandatory training for members under Clause 50, through this clause we want to see the day-to-day operation of a planning committee transformed, with planning committees making informed decisions in the interest of their community. No one who has been in local government for a while—I think most noble Lords in the Chamber today have been—can honestly say that there is no improvement to be made in the performance of planning committees. With councillors focused on the local plan and key planning applications, we think this improvement can be achieved.
I turn to Amendments 135HZB, 135HZC, 135HZD, 360A and 360B. First, I trust that the noble Baroness will understand that I cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings, and I do not intend to do so. The Home Office has a legal obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation while their application for asylum is being considered. The Government absolutely recognise the obvious and very legitimate concerns that people have about the use of asylum hotels; we have been clear that we will stop the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, and we have already made progress. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, commented, at peak, under the previous Government in 2023, more than 400 hotels were in use. Now just over 200 remain in use, and that number is coming down all the time. That is a reduction of 6,000 people staying in hotels.
You do not need a very long memory to go back to when there were no asylum hotels—I could go back to 2016, when that was the case, but I prefer to go back to my three years of arguing with the previous Government about the use of hotels in my area. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, commented that we should give local communities the agency that they deserve—I think those were her words. Her Government did not listen; they did not listen to communities, local government or representations from those working with asylum seekers, and they did not listen to businesses across this country, such as the international businesses I have in my area that need the hotels for the effective operation of their businesses. Her Government forced asylum hotels on us and left us with the mess to clear up.
In a very powerful contribution to yesterday’s debate, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that it was “astonishing” that an Opposition who passed legislation very effectively but were not effective in solving the problem are now criticising the Government for failing to do in one year what they failed to do in 14.
We will do the job of cleaning up the mess. We will sort it out, but instead of chucking bricks at each other, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said yesterday. First, a degree of humility from the party opposite would be very welcome—he said that, not me—and we should absolutely work together to solve this complex issue. Complex issues need careful solutions, not knee-jerk reactions to those who seek to use this issue to divide our country. As well as hypocrisy, I sense a bit of opportunism, and I do not think that is the right way to go; we have to work together on this issue. Knee-jerking will impact worst on those who deserve it least.
Another shocking legacy of the last Government is the 165,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. If we do not get a proper solution to hotel closure, the danger is that those children will go further to the back of the queue.
As for the points about the Rwanda scheme, that scheme cost billions and only four volunteers were ever returned. It was a waste of public money. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, again in yesterday’s debate, very powerfully set out some further concerns about Rwanda. It is time we stopped chucking bricks at each other on this key issue and started working together to resolve it.
In my view, this amendment would result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation and prevent us from proceeding in the controlled and orderly way that we want to. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his comments on this—as has been said in the Chamber, he has more planning knowledge than the rest of us put together—but I know he will know that this is a much more complex issue than can be dealt with by one approach. All these different hotels were granted planning permission by different local authorities, they all had different conditions placed on them and local authorities are looking very carefully at their own hotels to see how they might proceed with this.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we take very seriously the concerns about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers and we are already taking action, but I am afraid that I just cannot support these amendments, which I suspect were laid for a different purpose altogether. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.
Finally, on Amendment 346DB tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, I want to start by thanking him for the insight shared; it is good to be reminded that our debates can be incredibly serious but also very spirited, and that is a good thing. This amendment would remove the legal protection afforded to bats under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The noble Lord will of course be aware that, as part of our plan for change, the Government are committed to turning the tide on nature’s decline. This means that we are of course committed to protecting our most precious species and upholding our international obligations towards the environment. However, we recognise that people can experience issues with the existing system and there will understandably be questions as to the level of protections afforded to bats and other species and how these protections can affect the delivery of homes and infrastructure.
Amendment 346DB would completely remove all bats from the habitats regulations, regardless of their vulnerability. This would risk undermining our ability to deliver on our commitments under international law, which includes protection for bats. The sweeping removal of protection is too blunt, and this issue requires careful consideration and nuance. We will of course continue to explore further options to improve the handling of interactions between bats and development, including through the nature restoration fund—I am sure we will have a very full debate on that when we get to it—and we will establish a new way to manage the interaction between development and protected sites and species.
Although the nature restoration fund will provide another route to address the impact of development on protected species, we are already delivering a suite of measures to practically improve the interactions between bats and development. As well as progressing actions recommended by the landmark Corry review on environmental regulation, which will remove duplication, ambiguity and inconsistency for developers, Natural England is also expanding its earned recognition scheme for bat licences, which provides a streamlined route to licences that saves developers time and money. Under earned recognition, permissions are determined three or four times more quickly than for standard licences. In addition, Natural England is expanding its popular pre-application advice offer, which can expedite planning applications and avoid unexpected surveys or repeat applications. Finally, it is developing a pilot to test quicker and cheaper bat roost survey options so that less is spent on surveys and development can begin sooner.
Having said all that, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this group.
As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising made clear, his amendment is throwing down a gauntlet to the Government. If media reports are correct, Ministers have plans to deliver reforms that will unlock housing while maintaining genuine protections for endangered wildlife. But my noble friend made it very clear that he thinks that the Government should get on with it. We believe in protecting our green and pleasant land, and we made progress on environmental issues when we were in government, but we also believe in common sense. The much-lampooned HS2 bat tunnel and the ridiculous situation my noble friend had to deal with personally are clearly perverse outcomes, and the Government should seek to resolve them urgently.
“Applications for development consent: modelling and simulation In section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (duty to consult), after subsection (2) insert— “(3) In conducting a consultation under subsection (1), the applicant must provide and publish a digital twin model and simulation of the proposed development.(4) In this section, a “digital twin model and simulation” must— (a) be constructed to a standard at least equivalent to Building Information Modelling Level 3 (BIM 3) as defined or recognised by the Secretary of State,(b) include a virtual replica of all principal physical and environmental features of the development and its site,(c) simulate anticipated impacts on land, water, air, biodiversity, transport infrastructure and the built environment, and(d) describe the data sources, assumptions, validation methodology, and range of scenarios tested.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) define technical standards for digital twin and simulation methodologies;(b) determine what constitutes compliance with BIM 3.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires that applicants for Development Consent Orders provide and publish a digital twin model, meeting at least Building Information Modelling Level 3 standards, as part of the consultation process.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 107, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I am not personally someone who naturally embraces the cutting edge of technology, and I am very glad that those two noble Lords have put their names to this, because I think they will know far more about it than me, but I was truly excited by the potential of the subject of these amendments, and that is digital twins. I will now attempt to explain what digital twins are.
I am excited because I know from my experience of years chairing a planning committee that explaining proposals and different options, examining different possibilities and translating them into plans is very hard. Doing a planning-for-real exercise with maps cannot really take on board all the changes that embracing various options can bring. The digital twin is a very positive evolution from static models to dynamic digital replicas of what is proposed.
These amendments are deliberately framed around the consultation elements of the various parts of planning law that we are seeking here to alter. That is because digital twins are not just about better project planning and delivery; they are also about winning public confidence and consent—an issue that my noble friend Lady Pinnock spoke about earlier—given the importance of taking a community with you when you are trying to deliver change. In the case of new towns, to which Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 relate, this is going to be incredibly important.
I am certain that the Government want to deliver on their housing target in a way that communities can buy into and will support, whether with new towns or extensions of existing developments. There will always be disagreements, but proper modelling of the kind advocated by these amendments would be a critical tool for engaging with those who will be affected by the developments and demonstrate the pros and cons of the various options.
For example, such modelling can take on board demographics when it comes to planning, from schools right through to care homes. It will model what is likely to happen with the population and whether that will be relevant to what is proposed. It would also be a critical tool when various transport options were being designed, as it can model traffic flow, taking into account the changing model of the working week, for example. That is a very dynamic issue—the changing way in which we work. We do not want to design transport systems that are rooted in something that happened 10 years ago. That is the part that I find the most exciting: the community engagement for a digital age and a digitally literate generation.
The other advantage is the one that should excite the Government and the Treasury more. As we know, this country’s record on delivering major infrastructure projects on time and on budget is sadly woeful. We need only look at the recent past. HS2 began life with an estimated cost of £37.5 billion. The latest figure is £80 billion, and that is with the northern leg cancelled altogether. Half the infrastructure has been gained for double the cost. There are lots of other examples, which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, with their experience, will cite. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will talk about Hinkley Point C, which was meant to be operational by 2023 at a cost of £18 billion but is now not expected to be online until the 2030s, with the price tag having more than doubled to £40 billion.
The Government are well aware that the public will oppose necessary infrastructure when they see inefficiencies, costs and overruns, no benefit to them and a big price tag. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid by tabling the amendments with this digital model. As a country, we must find a way to deliver more infrastructure, more quickly, on time and, crucially, on budget.
A digital twin is a virtual replica of assets that can be tested, stress-modelled and monitored in real time, and it offers precisely that capability. If advanced digital twins of the kind now available had been mandated from the start of projects such as HS2, Ministers and engineers alike would have had the data to foresee overruns and mitigate the risks. That is what I am hoping that we can achieve if we can bring this technology into common use.
In 2016, there was a digital technology known as building information modelling level 2. That was mandated for use in government projects in 2016. Level 2 is, in essence, about collaboration on static models. These amendments propose that projects requiring development consent—that is, nationally significant infrastructure projects and new towns and extensions—should be required to deploy building information modelling level 3. Meeting that standard would see construction use genuinely advance in a dynamic, integrated model of the asset that is continually updated. That is the important point: it is continually updated with real-time data and capable of simulating scenarios, predicting performance and informing decisions throughout the life of the project. The Government’s plans are in some cases decades long, so these projects have a long time.
Building information modelling level 2 allowed us to design better, but level 3 will allow us to build better. The good news is that we in Britain are leading the way on this digital twin technology. I have had conversations with the only British company—as far as I know—that is involved in building such simulations. It is called Skyral. Its models can be built in a matter of weeks, and they can simulate how populations of whole countries function and might be made better by new infrastructure.
In winding, I invite the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to indicate whether she is willing to meet Skyral alongside me, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for a demonstration of these issues. It is exciting that this cutting-edge technology has been developed here, in Britain, by an independent British company.
Although we keenly feel the failures of cost and time overruns, they are far from a uniquely British problem. Research from the University of Oxford shows that more than 90% of big infrastructure projects worldwide go over budget and are delivered late. There is a huge opportunity here for us both in the Government’s plans for infrastructure and development and to export this technology. I hope the Government seize that. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 107 might appear to be of a technical and specialised nature, but I insist that it is fundamental to the modern methodology of infrastructure planning. I will talk briefly about the problems in planning before dealing specifically with the topic of digital twins.
The cost of making detailed plans is cheap relative to the costs of delivery. Good planning increases the likelihood of rapid delivery. With a speedy delivery, the chances are reduced of a project being thrown off course by unexpected events. Overruns of cost and time can be limited by careful planning. One is liable to imagine that recent infrastructure projects in the UK have been uncommonly affected by rising costs and delays, but, as has been mentioned, international comparisons have shown that such experiences are common to many countries.
Nevertheless, many of the dysfunctions of project management in the UK can be attributed to the economic nostrums that arose in the years of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Governments. During the period in question, the doctrine of outsourcing was widely propagated. It proposed that organisations should concentrate on their core activities, which are the things that they do best, and that functions that had hitherto been performed in-house should be assigned to external providers possessed of specialised expertise. It was proposed that this recommendation should be followed equally by the public and the private sectors.
The doctrine of outsourcing has been responsible for many of the problems that have beset the HS2 rail project. It was supposed that specialised contractors could be relied on to undertake both the planning and the delivery of the project. Frequent revisions of the master plan created confusion and delay. The overall direction and co-ordination of the project was the responsibility of a weak and ill-equipped company that was HS2 Ltd.
What is required in a major infrastructure project is a firm and detailed plan and the active co-operation of the contractors involved in its delivery. An example of how this can be achieved has been provided by the projects to build the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C nuclear power stations. One can extol the arrangements at Hinkley C despite the delays and cost overruns that have affected the project. Some of those are attributable to political indecisiveness and some to the misfortune of the Covid pandemic.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is nice to see amity break out across the Committee after the previous group. I imagine a digital twin of the House of Lords would get to Amendment 135 by 7 pm.
Digital twins offer such an ability for local councils and their officers and members, and members of the public, to really get to grips with a plan. Otherwise, you are presented with something static that is really hard to change. It is just, “Shall we push it through or shall we retreat?” With a digital twin you can adjust, look at different ways of doing it and absorb comments as they come through, at a really low cost, and arrive at a much more evolved, much better, solution at the end of it.
I urge the Government, given that digital twins are part of the industrial strategy, to use this as an example to develop the Government’s role as a partner/customer, as a way of helping new small businesses and technologies cut their teeth and get a worthwhile first contract or two out of the way, and not to stand back but be part of the development of a strong new British industry. There is an opportunity here to do that, particularly with the Government’s new town programme. I really hope they take it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I endorse completely the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and her supporters. She introduced it engagingly and comprehensively. I have therefore scribbled out most of what I was going to say. She has done the Committee a double service in that respect.
A common difficulty for those citizens who wish to examine or question a development proposal is the scarcity of information, expertise and resources they have, often when up against a large professional development company. Planning authorities have the same problem, and the risk of very expensive and protracted discussions and inquiries to get to grips with the proposed project. Some applications that I have seen seem almost designed to overcome planning authorities and public resistance through the sheer volume and number of boxes of paper that arrive, within which people have to try to find where the bodies are buried.
If such projects were obliged to produce a digital twin model, as the amendment proposes, not only would we have a more equitable process but it would also save a great deal of time, resources and money. I could say a great deal more, but I will not because we all dread the phrase, “My Lords, a lot of good points have been made” and I shall not repeat it. I genuinely shall not. I support these amendments, and I will now sit down.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches I support this amendment and thank other Lords for their support. One thing the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said is that if we had had a digital twin model earlier, the bat tunnel we talked about would probably never have been necessary in HS2.
Clearly, there are issues around this on data privacy, keeping information up to date, legacy systems and so forth. But one of the positives is that once you have a model, you do not just discard it once the project has finished; you continue using it into the future and update it. It allows you all the benefits into the future.
We on these Benches are very interested to hear where the Government are in the development of this area, which I certainly hope is an area where the UK, with its IT prowess, will move ahead of our competitors and use it for the kinds of not very successful infrastructure projects that we have had in recent years.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I am also greatly pleased to say that we seem to have broken out into a spirit of co-operation. As noble Lords will know, modelling and simulation are used to drive efficiency in infrastructure and planning projects. I recall, as a project engineer more than 30 years ago, using simulations and realising just how valuable they are in avoiding mistakes and bringing people on board with exactly what you are proposing.
Therefore, they have the potential to reduce costly mistakes in the planning process, deliver infrastructure that is better, more adaptive and more resilient and, as Members have commented, bring residents and others on board because they can see what is there. They would also, I hope, allow developers to modify their plans to reflect what the public want because it can be done so much more easily through a model.
This technology is moving at pace, as are other technologies such as AI, and it is therefore likely that legislation will be required in future to keep pace with changes. Ensuring that the law remains sufficiently flexible and future-proof and does not inhibit development is going to be important, as is how this is integrated into the planning system as opposed to being a stand-alone, nice little model that you look at. If we are going to look at amendments and how changes can be made, we have to think about whether that means we need to produce a volume of paper documents or whether there is some output that we can integrate. It is a complex issue that we need more thought on, but it is a great opportunity. How do the Government intend to ensure that this planning law evolves, and how can it be integrated so that planners are able to realise the full potential of technology? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her amendments relating to modelling and simulation technologies and commend her forbearance for waiting this long to get to this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his tour de force on the use of twin modelling. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Cromwell, Lord Teverson and Lord Jameson, for their welcome comments.
Amendment 107 seeks to require applications for development consent orders to provide and publish a digital twin model as part of the consultation process. This digital model would need to meet building information modelling level 3. We agree that there is great potential in the development of new technologies, such as digital twin modelling, to support the planning system. The Prime Minister recently recognised the great achievements of planning AI exemplars in speeding up the planning system in local authorities. We also recognise that the use of digital twin modelling could make the potential benefits and impacts of a large-scale infrastructure project more accessible and transparent to the communities affected.
While there is great potential here, we do not think it is proportionate to require it of every applicant at this stage. The purpose of this Bill is to speed up the process by which nationally significant infrastructure projects are consented to deliver the infrastructure this country needs. Requiring digital twin modelling at an early stage in a project’s design is likely to add cost and delay for applicants, particularly given that schemes are likely to change during the pre-application stage.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill also removes the statutory requirement to consult before an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Government wish to mandate this innovation on applications in future, they already have the power to do so. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act gives the Secretary of State, and by extension the Planning Inspectorate, powers to request additional digital products when applicants submit applications.
Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 would provide development corporations with the power to undertake modelling and simulation to building information modelling level 3 standards in order to evaluate the impact of the activities. As noble Lords will be aware, development corporations deliver large-scale development and infrastructure projects that take years to deliver. We expect robust and up-to-date modelling and simulation to be undertaken by development corporations to plan and deliver each stage.
However, we believe these amendments to be unnecessary. Development corporations already have broad-ranging powers to do anything that is necessary to achieve their objectives. There is therefore no legislative bar to development corporations undertaking this level of modelling and simulation. None the less, where appropriate we encourage development corporations to make good use of digital tools to promote greater information sharing and collaboration across the projects they deliver. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, managed in less than a minute and a half to explain, in a much more down to earth way, what it took me probably eight minutes to explain. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, very much for his kind remarks, and for lending support to this. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his explanation of some of the other issues surrounding this. I was encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I am glad that we had a better sense of unity breaking out in the Chamber. If my amendments serve no other purpose, at least they have brought us back together in a certain way.
I thank the Minister for his positive reply. I am interested that the powers are there for the Secretary of State to require this technology. I think it is going to be necessary for the Secretary of State to really push this and use those powers. Very often it takes a long time for people to grasp the use of technology—whether because of the cost of investing in it or simply because of lack of vision. I hope those powers will be pushed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
May I interject? The Minister seemed to imply that adopting digital twins would impose extra time and cost on planning. I contend that in fact it expedites planning and reduces the costs. I hope the Minister will consider that assertion.
“Residential buildings on floodplains(1) Local planning authorities must not grant permission for residential properties to be built on functional floodplains or areas at high risk of flooding. (2) An area is a functional floodplain or at high risk of flooding for the purposes of subsection (1) if the Environment Agency assesses it as a Zone 3a or 3b flood zone.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on floodplains or on areas at high risk of flooding.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to address Amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 in this group. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Willis of Summertown, for their support for these amendments. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who will outline her amendments, which are very closely aligned to the content of mine; I think we are more or less on the same page.
The background and starting point to this group is that houses built since Flood Re came into effect in 2009 will no longer qualify for flood insurance if they are built on a flood plain. Flood Re excluded them for a very simple reason: it did not want developers and local authorities to give planning permission to houses on functional flood plains. That is an obvious starting point. I welcome that the Government have commissioned the flood ready review, currently being undertaken by Peter Bonfield. I hope it will report fairly soon, possibly even while the Bill is still going through the House. I will be interested to see what the future holds following that review.
The review will look at property flood resilience measures, which are simple, low-cost, proven interventions installed in a home to resist surface water flooding, significantly reducing the time and cost of recovering from a flood. In my previous life as a shadow Flooding Minister, one of the most poignant and saddest things I had to do was visit homes where there had been major floods, both in my own constituency and elsewhere. I am only too aware that people can be evicted from their homes for three to six months for public health reasons while the house is being put back into shape.
The type of property flood resilience measures that I am looking at and that the review will look at are self-closing air-bricks, non-return valves on toilets, sump pumps and such. The Government’s own studies have found that these measures provide significant cost-effective opportunities to improve flood resilience. Property flood resilience significantly reduces the time and cost of recovering from floods, so I hope the Minister will respond positively to the amendments I am about to go into in some detail.
Flooding costs the UK economy £2.4 billion a year. The average cost of repairing a home after a flood is £30,000 and the average time spent out of a home is nine months. Currently, 4.1 million homes are at risk of surface water flooding. This is a comparatively recent type of flooding, only identified since 2007. This follows on specifically from the measures outlined in the Sir Michael Pitt review of that year. There are now three times as many properties at high risk of flooding from surface water compared to that from rivers and the sea.
Currently, 3.1 million UK homes are exposed to flood depths where property flood resilience measures would be most effective and where they could realistically benefit from such interventions. Some 83% of properties exposed to surface water risks are unprotected—far higher than proportions for river or coastal flooding. The Government will be well aware that, by 2050, 6.1 million homes will be at risk of surface water flooding and the number at high risk is expected to have increased by 66%. So these amendments are very timely and could stem the flow of increased properties at risk. In the 12 local authorities with the highest flood risk, over 7,000 homes have been recently granted planning permission on flood plains. In 2021-22, 7% of new homes were built in flood zone 3. Therefore, identifying those most at risk of flooding is especially appropriate.
Recognising that surface water flooding now has a greater effect than either river or coastal flooding and the fact that, in a group much later in the Bill, we look at my own pet subject of sustainable drainage—I look forward to my meeting with the Minister and her colleague from Defra, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to discuss that—I would argue that introducing flood resilience measures to new properties as well as retrofitting old ones would be an extremely valuable opportunity.
I will discuss each of the amendments in turn. I completely omitted to declare my interests, for which I apologise profusely. I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water and vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I have co-authored a number of reports with Policy Connect and the Westminster Sustainable Business Forum, which is a local think tank in London. We have co-authored a number of reports on bricks and water—four to date, and we hope to do a fifth. I am drawing heavily on the recommendations in those reports, and I would be delighted to share them with the Minister for some reading, perhaps during Conference Recess when she has a quiet moment.
Amendment 108 looks at residential building on flood plains. The idea of this amendment is to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on what I would describe as functional flood plains or on areas at high risk of flooding. As Flood Re established, if they are not going to be covered for insurance, it seems very unfair on a householder who may not in fact need a mortgage to find out that, subsequent to buying that house, they are not eligible because of flooding. The amendment would narrow it down so that flood zones 3a and 3b are excluded.
Amendment 109 looks at property flood resilience measures, which I described briefly before, particularly raised electrical sockets, non-return valves on utility pipes, air-brick covers, resilient wall plaster and others such as the Secretary of State herself may wish to identify. These resilience measures are being installed at only a fraction of the pace required to make vulnerable homes insurable once the Flood Re insurance scheme is withdrawn in 2039. That might seem a long time away, but it is only 14 years before the Flood Re scheme expires. Amending building regulations to require the use of basic property flood resilience would offer an affordable way to accelerate uptake and would mean that houses built in higher-risk flood areas are adapted for that purpose. It would constitute a far cheaper option than retrofitting, which, while it brings benefits, is obviously infinitely more expensive for new houses.
I turn to Amendment 155, which looks at local plans and planning applications regarding flooding. The sequential exception tests are planning tools that would help to ensure that new development is directed away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, and would make necessary development in areas of flood risk safe throughout their lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, as the displaced water is often simply moved to flood existing or other developments. However, these tests are currently only guidance. I propose in Amendment 155 to put them on a statutory basis, as that could only help to ensure that local planning authorities place due regard on them when preparing local plans and considering individual planning applications.
Amendment 156 looks at the strategic flood risk assessment maps and would make sure that these included the most up-to-date flood risk assessment provided by the Environment Agency. In this regard, a statutory duty should be placed on local planning authorities to do so. Strategic flood risk assessments are vital to ensuring that planning decisions take into account risks from all sources of flooding, including an allowance for climate change. They would also help to identify whether any proposed development fell into flood zone 3b, the functional flood plain. Placing a duty on local planning authorities to keep strategic flood risk assessments up to date would ensure that they can reliably inform the development of local plans and incorporate the latest information from the Environment Agency’s new national flood risk assessment.
The Minister was temporarily unable to listen because she was being consulted by the party managers, but I am sure that she shares my concern that 7,000 new homes have been built on flood plains in 12 local authorities alone, and that 7% of new homes were built in flood zone 3b in 2021-22 alone. With those remarks, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these key amendments and put them on a statutory footing. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who provided a detailed, comprehensive introduction to the amendments in this group in her name, a number of which I have attached my name to. I also look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, on this topic.
I will try to be fairly brief as I am very aware of the hour. I am going to start with Amendment 227A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. In researching this, I found the most perfect case study to follow the recommendations—which I am sure we will hear from the noble Baroness shortly—of the need to build to allow for the practical reality of the world we live in today. This study comes from flooding in York in 2015. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, who is not currently in his place, was then the Archbishop of York. He was resident in Bishopthorpe Palace and tweeted:
“We are fortunate … that back in the 13th Century they built with flooding in mind, such that when the water subsides it soon washes through the original flood drains made for the purpose”.
We have tended over the past century to think that we can just ignore nature and natural forces. We will build a wall—we will just put things down and assume that nature is going to adapt to us. Amendment 227A in particular, but all these amendments, are an acknowledgment of the fact that we now live in a climate emergency world. Many of these issues are much larger than they were previously, but we cannot ignore them anymore—we should not have ignored them previously, but we certainly cannot ignore them now.
Amendment 108 is about not building on flood plains. Many years ago I was chairing a session at the Green Party conference on flooding and heard a phrase that I have repeated many times since, and I make no apologies for that. It was that the flood plain is not beside the river; the flood plain is part of the river. If we think about that lovely little green patch that might be called Meadow Flat, or Wetland, or something—it is just beside the river, with a beautiful view over the river, and we have put housing on it. That is exactly the same as putting the house in the middle of the river. We cannot afford to keep doing that, and that is why I make no apologies for this amendment. If that is the only place where we can put housing, we should not be building new housing in the river.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, went through a great many of the things that I had in my pile, so I am going to avoid repeating them. Just to note that, as the noble Baroness said, there is a government review on measures that we should be taking on flooding. I also note that the Environmental Audit Committee is conducting an inquiry right now in the other place on flood resilience. The concern is obvious, but we really cannot wait for all of these to report many of the measures here in terms of taking action to protect people, their lives and their property from flooding. We already know what to do; we do not need further inquiries.
I will just point out to noble Lords who are interested that there was an excellent report out on 26 June called the UK Climate Resilience Roadmap from the Green Building Council and a number of other largely commercial organisations. To highlight a couple of things from it, it found that flooding would make Peterborough—and I note the noble Lord who would be particularly interested in that is not currently in his place—and the Welsh village of Fairbourne likely uninhabitable by the end of this century, which is not very far away at all. I do not know about Fairbourne, but I know that we are still building new housing, probably in very vulnerable places, in Peterborough.
I suspect we are going to hear lots more, so I will just point very briefly to the Committee on Climate Change pointing out how far we are from tackling the climate adaptation measures that we need to take. To pick out just one of its most recent recommendations, we need to integrate adaptation into all relevant policies. For policies, also, of course, read law. I hope we are going to hear positive words from the Minister on these amendments.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as noted in the register, as chair for Peers for the Planet. I am delighted to add my name in support of Amendments 108 and 109, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I also support the other amendments in this group, all of which come together on a core purpose to strengthen our resilience to flooding through the planning system. I particularly support Amendment 135B, which seems really sensible.
It is hard to believe we are having this discussion as we have just come through a summer of heatwaves. However, as we all know, and as we have already heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, flooding is becoming increasingly common and all the predictions on it are very scary when you look at them. We see this year in and year out, and it is increasingly costly to the UK. We have heard about the cost involved, but it is not only housing that is impacted. The increased flood risk has an impact on all aspects of urban infrastructure. Some 38% of all roads in England are currently at risk of flooding, as are 37% of all railways, 34% of all water pumping stations and sewage treatment plants, and 59% of grade 1 agricultural land. This is not just a housebuilding issue; it is an issue for the whole urban infrastructure.
To flag up another issue that has not been mentioned, it has not only economic risks and risks to lives and livelihoods, but risks to health. There is now a lot of research that shows that flooding can cause long-lasting mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression and PTSD, and all these add a burden to the health budget, as well as everything else.
We have heard from many—and we have even heard from the Climate Change Committee—that it is critical that we build mitigation strategies into our land management policies. This is where the issue comes in. We have natural capital assets in this country that are perfectly adapted for fulfilling this role, and it is in the name: flood plains—they have been here for hundreds, if not thousands, of years to do this role. It was highlighted in the Government’s own 2024 State Of Natural Capital Report, in which they made the point that they recognize them as crucial natural capital assets for flood management by storing and slowing water flows. The Office for National Statistics natural capital accounts in 2024 also recognised their value. For example, the total asset value of natural capital in England was estimated at £1.4 trillion. It did not disaggregate the flood plains, but it explicitly noted that wetlands and flood plains are a significant part of these natural capital assets, contributing to this cost through regulating services and risk reduction. Not only does housebuilding impact hugely on the people whose houses are flooded, but by building on the flood plains we are taking away our one natural way of maintaining and enhancing our resilience to flooding.
What is wrong with the planning system? I keep hearing about the National Planning Policy Framework, and I keep being told, “It’s all right, it’s covered in the NPPF”. This time, I went back through it in detail to see what it is in the NPPF that is going to allow us to stop building on flood plains. Of course, the problem is that it is guidance; it is not mandatory. It does not stop people from going ahead and building. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the report by Localis showed in 2024 that over 7,000 dwellings are currently in the planning pipeline for areas with an existing very high risk of flooding—that is over 7,000 houses. When they flood, should we be surprised? Over 1,600 dwellings have already been given planning permission in the first half of 2024.
Despite the precautions and people saying, “It’s fine, they’re covered in the NPPF”, there is no existing law against granting planning permission for and the construction of homes on the flood plain. Even the Environment Agency advice has been ignored in the building of these houses.
There is a big problem here. I do not think the legislation or guidance we currently have is being adhered to, and the problem is going to get only worse. If we are going to build on the flood plain, we absolutely have to put in some of these mitigation measures so eloquently described in this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I support these amendments wholeheartedly.
As one last point, I welcome—as I am sure we all do—the increased government investment of £2.65 billion to protect communities from flooding, which was announced earlier this year. That is fantastic, but it does not make sense to have that being pulled in the opposite direction of the legislation we have for housebuilding on flood plains.
To conclude, we need much firmer legislation to prevent the building of houses on flood plains. If there really are no alternatives, we also must have legislation which means that the houses built are able to withstand the flooding that will happen. Let us be honest about it—it is not if, it is when.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the three amendments in my name in this group are particularly focused on the pressing issue of flood risk. I thank other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group raising this all-important issue. This is not an abstract problem but one that devastates families, undermines communities and is set to worsen dramatically as our climate continues to change.
These amendments were originally raised in the House of Commons by Helen Morgan MP, Member for North Shropshire, one of England’s most rural and flood-hit constituencies. She has taken the initiative, along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, of setting up a new All-Party Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities. She has rightly recognised that flood risk demands urgent solutions. Her determination to give voice to people living in constant fear of floods and repeat flooding is bringing national attention to a critical issue affecting homes and livelihoods and blighting communities.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her support on Amendment 135B. It seeks to solve a problem raised by the noble Baroness by bringing paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, advice that currently stands only as guidance, on to the statute book. Under this amendment, when considering an application for development consent, a local planning authority would be obliged to assess whether that development might increase flood risk or reduce flood mitigation for neighbouring properties or land.
This amendment would help prevent the frankly indefensible practices we have already heard about of building on flood plains, and it would ensure that drainage systems be properly accounted for in new developments. Too often, these systems—whether attenuation ponds or so-called sustainable drainage systems, or SUDS—are left unadopted and therefore unmaintained, or are simply inadequate to begin with. Of course, we all understand and recognise that local authorities, under extraordinary financial pressure, are rarely in a position to enforce standards strongly, especially when the NPPF is merely guidance, as we have already heard, rather than enforceable law. This would help protect communities from situations where drainage systems are not up to standard and are left unadopted, including by water companies. In north Shropshire, for example, there have been multiple new developments which, despite having SUDS in place and, usually, as I have mentioned before, an attenuation pond, have in turn caused flooding to the existing neighbouring properties.
This amendment also links directly to an excellent proposal in the House of Commons by Gideon Amos MP, Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would bring into force Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This would make water companies statutory consultees in the planning system, ensuring their expertise and infrastructure responsibilities are considered when future developments are approved.
If we want to protect new home owners, this is common sense. We know that water companies have often struggled with capacity, so excluding them from the table during the planning process is a recipe for yet more flooded homes. This approach protects these new home buyers from the risk of facing flooded homes and inadequate sewage systems, including raw sewage backing up in gardens and downstairs toilets.
Amendment 227A turns to the resilience of new homes. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her excellent historical example. Changes to the climate will result in more intense and regular flooding throughout the country. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about surface flooding, a new and dangerous phenomenon that already affects at least 3.4 million properties, making it one of the most significant growing threats to our communities. We have also heard the Environment Agency’s warnings about that.
Amendment 227A proposes that, within six months of the Bill becoming law, the Secretary of State would make regulations under the Building Act 1984 requiring property flood resilience measures in all new builds. These measures are not futuristic; they are simple, practical and already well known to the development sector. They include raised electrical sockets, non-return valves, resilient wall plaster and flood-adapted air bricks. These can make the difference between needing a full year of rebuilding and the home being liveable again in literally a matter of weeks—it is that much of a difference.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will discuss the serious issue of flooding risks. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their hard work and amendments to the Bill, which I shall discuss in further detail in a moment.
Flooding threatens our communities and livelihoods with increasing frequency and severity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, some 6.3 million properties in England are located in areas at risk of flooding from rivers, the sea or surface water. I am experiencing—and I am sure others have experienced this as local councillors—ever-increasing incidences of flooding on our patches.
Flooding negatively impacts many aspects of people’s lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned some examples, and I can attest to examples in my own area and to seeing people flooded out of their homes two or three times in the space of three or four years. It upsets their health, finances and mental health. Can the Government confirm that protecting communities most at risk of flooding is a priority for them?
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has rightly tabled Amendments 108, 109, 155 and 156 to help ensure that the consideration of flood risk is not overlooked in the planning permission decisions. We support her in her objectives and hope the Government will take this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her Amendments 135B and 135C, on having regard to a development’s impact on the flooding and flood resilience in the broader area. There are, however, concerns regarding the potential scope and practicality of the broader point of assessing the impact on climate resilience.
On Amendment 227A and the incorporation of flood resilience in new buildings, this should be done on a risk-based approach. As we enter the autumn and winter months, it is imperative that the Government are well prepared for the flood risks soon to be faced by millions up and down this country. What procedures do the Government have in place to fulfil their duty of ensuring that strategic flood-risk assessments are up to date? Can the Minister take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the Government’s flood preparedness is adequate and that Ministers stand ready to implement flood recovery measures rapidly where flooding occurs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Grender, for their amendments on flood risk and resilience in the planning system. I also thank many Members of this Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had lots of discussion about flooding during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I know that lots of Members in this House worked very hard to draw these risks to the attention of the House and the wider public.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about the devastation that it causes. I visited Calderdale—I was doing a peer review there—very shortly after the terrible flooding that the area experienced in 2020. The impact of that was still very live; in fact, some of the shops were still shut because they were still damp. One thing that particularly struck me was that the only way of communicating during that flood, which, from memory, happened over the Christmas period, was to go back to pinning notices on the village noticeboard, because all the infrastructure—IT and everything—had gone down. They could not use phones and could not travel, so they were pinning notices on the old village noticeboard. These are terrible events.
The amendments raise very important issues about how we plan for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in the context of climate change. I can assure all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, specifically asked me the question—that the Government take these issues very seriously. We are acutely aware of the misery, disruption and costs that arise from flooding, of the increased risk associated with climate change, and of the need to maintain a robust approach to managing these risks. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson: we cannot overestimate the impact not just of flooding itself, which is awful, but of the fear of flooding when people live in properties subject to it. My area is not flood-prone, but we occasionally get flash floods when there is a big storm, which causes water ingress to people’s properties. I remember talking to a constituent about their terrible fear. As soon as it started to rain quite heavily, they would worry that it would happen again. How much worse that must be if you live in a flood-prone area, I can only imagine. It is not just the flooding itself; it is the fear of floods that impacts people.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, mentioned the work being done by the Environment Agency. It has commissioned an independent review of property flood resilience. It is not just an untargeted review of this, but a specific review around property flood resilience. The review will seek to identify current gaps and opportunities to grow the property flood resilience market, resulting in a new action plan. That review will report to the Environment Agency and Defra in autumn 2025.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who referred to the investment the Government are putting into flood resilience and maintaining flood defences. She is correct: we are investing £2.65 billion over two years—that is, 2024-25 and 2025-26—to build and maintain defences. That includes an additional £108 million that we are reprioritising into asset maintenance, ensuring that an additional 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. I repeat that because it shows, I hope, that the Government take these issues seriously.
Amendment 108 proposes a statutory ban on residential development in areas that fall within flood zone 3. Although we fully recognise the importance of directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding, this amendment would prevent development in large urban areas already protected by robust flood defences. For example, significant parts of Hull and central London lie within flood zone 3 but benefit from engineered flood protection. Under this amendment, development in these areas would be prohibited, even where it can be made safe for its lifetime and does not increase flood risk elsewhere.
The National Planning Policy Framework already includes strong protections which make it clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, including flood plains. I understand the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the NPPF, but I do not think that any planning inspector would accept a local plan submitted by a local authority that did not conform with the NPPF in terms of placing houses in flood risk areas, unless significant mitigation measures were put in place to prevent flooding.
Our policy means that new housing and most other forms of development are not appropriate in a functional flood plain where water has to flow or, importantly—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned this—be stored in times of flood. Where development is permitted, it must be demonstrated that it will be safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users.
I turn to Amendment 109, which proposes mandating property flood-resilience measures in all new homes at high risk of flooding, and Amendment 227A, which proposes introducing a requirement for specific flood-resilience features in all new homes. Improving resilience in properties subject to flood risk is an important objective. Reflecting this, the building regulations already support flood-resilient construction in areas at risk of flooding, while ensuring that properties that do not require further flood-resilience measures are not burdened with unnecessary costs. Requiring flood-resilient construction for all new dwellings would be disproportionate, given that many are located outside areas of current or projected flood risk. Designers of new homes may also choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice, which includes installing flood-resilient features.
I turn now to Amendments 135B and 135C, which would require local planning authorities to assess both the flood and climate resilience impacts of developments and whether a development could increase flood risk to neighbouring land, alongside introducing an annual reporting duty for the Secretary of State. Assessing the flood risk implications of development, as well as climate mitigation and adaptation more broadly, is already a requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework. The framework is clear that for development to be acceptable it should not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be safe for its lifetime if located in an area where flood risk exists.
Similarly, Amendment 155 seeks to place other aspects of national flood risk policy on a statutory basis—namely, the sequential and exception tests. We can agree about the importance of these policies, but it is important that policy on complex issues such as flood risk is capable of being adjusted as new evidence and issues arise. As I mentioned—I will mention it again—the National Planning Policy Framework plays a powerful role in the planning system. Both plan makers and planning decisions must have regard to it. It is not guidance in the usual sense of the word; it is a very clear part of the statutory planning process. These amendments would not only replicate this but introduce unhelpful inflexibility in our ability to keep policy under review.
The proposed reporting requirement set out in Amendment 135C would also impose a significant reporting obligation on the Government. Local planning authorities are already responsible for ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action if necessary.
Finally, Amendment 156 on strategic flood risk assessment maps would require local authorities to ensure that their maps are based on the most up-to-date data from the Environment Agency. This is already expected practice. Local authorities are required to use the latest available data when preparing strategic flood risk assessments, and the Environment Agency regularly updates its flood-mapping tools. Mandating updates in statute could impose administrative and financial burdens, particularly for smaller authorities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken and for the support from the two leading Baronesses who are very much experts in this field, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis. I am very grateful indeed. My amendments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, are very closely aligned, as I said earlier.
Although I am grateful for the full response I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, she is missing the point. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, described eloquently what the role of a flood plain is. It is just not fair if Flood Re is specifically excluding them from any form of house insurance for flooding; they should be there.
The point that the NPPF is non-statutory was made very firmly by those who supported this group of amendments. I quoted the figures for the increasing number of houses which do not meet its requirements. I share what can only be a concern of the Minister that the NPPF is not being adhered to.
But, given the lateness of the hour and the other groups to be debated, I ask for an urgent meeting with the Minister, the co-signatories of the amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and perhaps our own Front Bench. I really believe that we have to crack this. We mean this in a helpful way to the Government because, in effect, it does not matter who is in power; we have to ensure that we are giving the best support we can to developers who are developing houses to meet the government targets, while ensuring that they are flood resilient to the best degree. So I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to such a meeting, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw.
“Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities(1) In this section— “agent of change principle” means the principle requiring planning policies and decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities so that those businesses and facilities do not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established;“development” has the same meaning as in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (meaning of “development” and “new development”);“licensing functions” has the same meaning as in section 4(1) of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities); “provision of regulated entertainment” has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003 (provision of regulated entertainment);“relevant authority” means a relevant planning authority within the meaning of section 91 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, or a licensing authority within the meaning of section 3 of the Licensing Act 2003 (licensing authorities).(2) In exercising any functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or any licensing functions concerning development which is or is likely to be affected by an existing business or facility, a relevant authority shall have special regard to the agent of change principle.(3) An application for development within the vicinity of any premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment shall contain, in addition to any relevant requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595), a noise impact assessment.(4) In determining whether noise emitted by or from an existing business or community facility constitutes a nuisance to a residential development, the decision-maker shall have regard to—(a) the chronology of the introduction of the relevant noise source and the residential development, and(b) what steps have been taken by the developer to mitigate the entry of noise from the existing business or facility to the residential development.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity; I fear that my preparation will not be as polished as customary.
The genesis for this group of amendments was the ad hoc committee on the scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003, which I had the great honour to chair. I would just like to record my deep sadness that, since that time, two of the leading members of that committee, Baroness Henig and Lord Blair, who contributed greatly and lent a great deal of knowledge and expertise to its work, have very sadly passed away. I know that Baroness Henig supported me vigorously when I tabled similar amendments during the passage of the levelling-up Act.
I am delighted to say that, for Amendment 110, I have the support, for which I am most grateful, of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Parkinson, for family reasons cannot be here this evening, but I know that I have their staunch support. Sadly, on Amendment 111, I am very much on my own, but there we go. I recognise the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who was also a leading light and a great authority on that committee, and I am delighted he is in his place this evening.
The purpose of tabling these amendments is similar in one respect to that of the previous group. We have, if you like, the principle of agent of change, which is recognised by the Government, but I would like to see it enshrined in law. I welcome that there has been a recent press release from the Government, as analysed closely by the Institute of Licensing and many of those in the industry who follow this. The press release from the Government is very good news indeed. Obviously, it might be from a different department to that of the Minister who will be summing up the debate this evening. The Government have announced reforms to planning and licensing laws aiming to reduce bureaucratic barriers and fast-track the revival of town centres with a wave of new cafés, bars and music venues. What is important in adopting the two amendments—there should be nothing in them that is objectionable to the Government—is simply to establish the principle that, where people wish to put a new development in place against an existing music or other cultural venue, the onus is on those developers to ensure that the change of use will be recognised and that the ongoing existence of the current venue will be secured.
Why is this important? In 2024, the number of venues making a loss increased from 38.5% to 43.8%, so this is an industry which is very much under threat. If you look at developments since 2020, the impact of Covid probably hit this sector—music venues and the hospitality sector more generally—more harshly than any other sector.
I welcome the fact that the agent of change principle is guidance in the NPPF, and Section 106 agreements between local councils and developers have been vital tools. However, I make the strongest possible submission to the Minister that there are real concerns that they are not being respected as they should be, and I would just like her to agree—or, if she feels that the Government could come forward with amendments that are better crafted than those that I have drafted, I would welcome that indeed. I would like to see Amendment 110, which would insert the new clause “Agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities”, and Amendment 111, inserting the new clause “General duty of local authorities”, given the force of statute. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on the agent of change principle. As the noble Baroness says, just one example of the effect of this amendment is that it would be of significant help to grass-roots music venues, which are such an important part of the music industry’s ecology. Bands and individual artists cut their teeth in such live music settings. The loss of those venues is then a loss not just to the local community—which is important in itself—but to the music industry as a whole.
Precisely because of their importance within the overall ecology, the Government should do everything possible to protect those venues, which is a major reason why the existing guidance should be turned into law. As the Music Venue Trust says, with almost every constituency housing a grass-roots music venue, this amendment would, unusually, have an impact on over 720 venues across England, in communities from small villages to big cities.
As UK Music points out, this has been inspired by similar protections in Australia. In cities such as Melbourne, it has helped to revitalise the night-time and cultural economies. When a similar Bill was introduced in Parliament in the UK in 2018, it had the backing of music stars such as Paul McCartney, Chrissie Hynde, Brian Eno, Feargal Sharkey and many others. In 2019, the agent of change principle was made statutory in Scotland. It remains a material consideration for the rest of the UK—better than nothing but not nearly as effective as it might be.
The Government are keen to build new housing, so there is immense practicality about this amendment as well as a moral right in the principle. It would pre-empt and avoid complaints and ill feeling, potential court proceedings and the loss of important cultural assets. As Caroline Dinenage pointed out in the other place earlier this year, such legislation is
“supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/25; col. 710.]
Potentially, one can add sports venues—anywhere where sound is a significant aspect of the activity concerned. Any loss of these assets will have an effect on the local and wider economy, not to mention local pride in cultural facilities.
There is a strong argument that locally appropriate soundproofing should be a default concern for new builds in particular. Also, as the Music Venue Trust points out, full legislation would decrease red tape and speed up the planning process, meaning that housebuilding would be speeded up as well. The Music Venue Trust makes the important distinction about how the process operates in Scotland and England. In Scotland, because the agent of change principle is statutory, an objection submitted by the Music Venue Trust can refer directly to the national legislation alongside the impact of omitting the principle, so that as soon as the planning committee receives the objection, it can go straight back to the developer to ask them to change their plans. It is a relatively simple and speedy process. In England, because it is not statutory, there is a constant back and forth between the Music Venue Trust’s emergency response service and the local authority, with the same venue often appearing in their service multiple times for different applications. Sometimes the venue does not even appear in a noise impact assessment. All this contributes to a slower and fundamentally unsatisfactory process in England, leaving many applications awaiting decisions for far too long. These are significant concerns that making the agent of change principle statutory would address.
This is a very important amendment. Such legislation was a recommendation of the DCMS Select Committee’s 2024 special report on grass-roots music venues. The Government need to take this very seriously. I fully support it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I apologise, as other parliamentary responsibilities mean that I have not been able to take part so far in this very important Bill. However, in view of my previous involvement in issues around live entertainment and particularly music venues, I was anxious to speak very briefly in support of the noble Baroness’s two amendments.
When I was in the other place in 2012, I had the honour of leading the arguments in favour of what became the Live Music Act, which had been sponsored in your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. The purpose of that Act was to reduce regulation on performers and on venues to ensure more opportunity for live music and the growth of live music venues within this country.
More recently, in 2017, I had the opportunity to serve on your Lordships’ committee—ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—which looked at the 2003 licensing legislation. During our deliberations, we discovered that, notwithstanding the aims of the Live Music Act, the number of live entertainment venues, and particularly music venues, was reducing. One potential cause was the protests made by residents and occupants of premises that had been built after the existing venues. That caused a great deal of problems; hence we came forward with the proposals to introduce the agent of change principle that has already been referred to.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for these amendments. They are aligned with the shared principle of fairness where development will impact existing communities and infrastructure. In this case, they speak of the need to ensure that businesses already existing in an area do not suffer as a result of the development. I absolutely agree that it is often music businesses or noisy businesses that cause these discussions, and they should be protected: they were there first and everybody should put up with them, in my opinion. They should not suffer as a result of any further development or have unreasonable restrictions placed on them, as I have seen in the past, which does not seem fair. Does the Minister believe that the agent of change principle should have a statutory weight on it, rather than being solely in the NPPF? I think that is the important issue here.
Moreover, Amendment 111 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering touches on the role of local government as the arbitrator between the business and the developer. This highlights an important issue as we seek to balance the need for social stability with the growth that the Chancellor is promising, and I think these issues will come forward more and more in the future, so we need to get this sorted.
There is no denying that we need more housing—that is clear—but development must always go hand in hand with local economic needs. Without that balance, we risk creating a dormitory town, stripped of social fabric and disconnected from opportunity. How will the Government ensure that local authorities across England are supported to strike this essential balance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their comments. I share the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to ensure that new developments do not place unreasonable restrictions on existing businesses and are integrated effectively into their surroundings, and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, just made that live music venues are the things that make our communities vibrant and alive. We have just had our fantastic Old Town Live festival in Stevenage, in a series of music venues right along our high street; they are the things that bring people together and make it a good place to live.
The agent of change principle is already embedded in the National Planning Policy Framework. I reiterate my comments earlier that, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself, it forms part of the statutory planning process. The Government are clear that where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on a new development in its vicinity, the applicant or agent of change is responsible for providing suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.
Local planning authorities can also use planning conditions to make developments acceptable by addressing specific concerns, such as environmental impacts from noise pollution—for instance, by the use of engineering to reduce noise at source, or the use of noise insulation to mitigate the impact of noise on residents. Where they receive complaints, local authorities are obliged to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate. This allows them to consider a variety of factors in determining whether a complaint constitutes a nuisance in the eyes of the law. Additionally, local licensing authorities can incorporate the agent of change principle into their statement of licensing policy if they consider it useful to do so. This is at their discretion, as they are best placed to understand their own local context.
I understand the desire to embed these principles into law, but we believe this to be unnecessary given the provisions that already exist. It also risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments. We will continue considering how the agent of change principle can be better implemented within the planning system through national planning policy reform. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from those who have spoken, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lady Scott.
The Minister is missing the point. Each of those who spoke explained how the NPPF is not working because it is not on a statutory basis, and that the integration and harmony we would like to see between residential properties and businesses is being harmed by this. The very fact that one of the venues that Ed Sheeran sang at early in his career has since closed, along with the other examples we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, shows the importance of this.
I again ask the Minister whether she would be minded to have a meeting before Report with those who have expressed an interest in this area today, because I really believe that we need to progress this and put it on a statutory footing. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Permitted development and demolition: assets of community value(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph B.1 of Part 11 of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (e) insert—“(f) the building is designated as an asset of community value under the Localism Act 2011.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that buildings which have been designated as assets of community value cannot be demolished through permitted development rights.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 112 regards assets of community value and demolition through permitted development rights. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Carrington of Fulham for signing this amendment. They both informed me that they could not be here at this point but I know that they support the spirit of it. I will also talk to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about assets of cultural value, which is supported by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
This amendment is designed for communities that go to the trouble of putting together an asset of community value. That is a reasonably high bar, by the way. It is not just proving that something has been enjoyed by the community. There is also an element of showing that, if it came up for sale, the community would have the wherewithal to buy that asset. Right now, it is very easy for the original owner, perhaps somewhat frustrated by wanting a change in use for that asset, to demolish it. Suddenly, it evaporates. They do not need any planning permission to get rid of it. There is no protection for the asset of community value.
You may ask, “Would this ever happen?”, but it has happened. I recall a place called Rendlesham in Suffolk, widely known for the story about it having UFOs. It used to be a US airbase and it still has a NATO runway. The US Air Force handed it over to the UK Government, who continued to use it, but over time it was not needed so it was sold to a developer. It is a lovely community and reasonably good for developing more homes and creating a community. The developer put out a wonderful brochure and was selling this vision.
People may be aware that US Air Force facilities, and military facilities generally, tend to have big, ambitious buildings. Even their schools have huge corridors. There was a wonderful sports hall and a wonderful theatre. The selling of this community, right next to the magnificent Rendlesham Forest, although admittedly with a military base still nearby, was part of the mission, and led to it becoming a place where the council thought it was good to grow and, over time, extend its boundary.
I do not know who did the original deal, but the deal was that the developers had to make sure that both the theatre and the sports centre stayed open for at least 10 years. By my recollection, pretty much a day or two after the 10 years were over, the developers closed both facilities. They wanted to get rid of them and convert them into commercial shops and more housing. Understandably, the community was up in arms.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 185H in this group, which is a probing amendment. I ask the Government to give some serious thought to it as it addresses a gap in our thinking about the arts and arts practice. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I am also grateful to UK Music for its input into this amendment.
This amendment would establish a system for locally identifying and protecting physical assets of cultural value—that is to say, the spaces or buildings in which the arts take place, be it a music venue, a rehearsal space, a recording studio, an arts centre, a theatre or a visual artist studio, to list just a few potential examples, and one can think of others. This amendment is intended to work alongside and complement the community value scheme. I should also say that I support Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
At the national level, my amendment would be helpful to and complementary to funding bodies such as the Arts Council, whose concern is primarily for artists and arts organisations, although I acknowledge that its new creative foundation fund will be concerned specifically with the repair of selected buildings.
Of course, most arts are being produced in local, non-residential physical business spaces, public and private. Sometimes they are purpose-built. They are most often furnished for a particular cultural use. If individual artists and organisations do not have access, or lose access, to the spaces in which to work or rehearse then they cannot work—or at least, they cannot do so in the optimum environment, irrespective of the value of their work commercially or the value placed on it through support by a funding body. That is the crucial importance of buildings to the arts, which we always seem to be in danger of overlooking. Buildings are always somewhere, and always in local communities.
I want to address one potential criticism of such a scheme, which is that the arts should not be preserved in aspic; fashions change and new ideas come in. However, the great danger in the present day is the unnecessary loss of assets which are still relevant and still have currency, but without there being any form of replacement.
The Music Venue Trust cites examples of music clubs which have had to close days after they have sold out events, such are the often overwhelming contemporary pressures on our cultural assets. Of our grass-roots music venues, 125—16% of all GMVs—closed in the UK in 2023. Last year, 25 closed, but we are still talking about an overall downward trend. GMVs are, of course, important at the local level but a circuit of clubs for performers is of national importance. The loss of so many grass-roots music venues threatens that circuit.
I will cite one other example: theatres. The theatres at risk register 2025, compiled by the Theatres Trust, finds that 40% of theatre buildings face closure without urgent investment. Sometimes, of course, such buildings also have strong architectural merit.
There is a real concern for our cultural assets in the current climate of economic uncertainty, alongside other pressures such as those discussed in the last group. Such pressures include energy and other running costs, rent, business rates and the depletion of council resources, alongside the selling off of council buildings and the contemporary pressures of housebuilding and redevelopment. All these things are piling enormous pressures on our cultural buildings, which ought to be understood as having a significant value, both in themselves and as part of the local infrastructure. The loss of such buildings is a loss—often an irreplaceable loss—not just to the arts, but to local communities, which often take huge pride in their own cultural facilities. The crucial thing, which this amendment specifically addresses, is that we do not think enough about the particular relationship between culture and locality. Local cultural value is not the same, necessarily, as local community value. I hope the Minister will agree with that.
At present, it is all too easy for our cultural facilities to quietly disappear without any local protective system in place to question that disappearance. As I have intimated, this is currently happening across the whole country. Such a system would give power to local people for the protection of their own cultural buildings and spaces. As well as the social effect, there is the effect on the local economy and the ripple effect that can be created in additional jobs and trade. Of course, this is something local people understand more than anyone.
In summary, the value of the scheme—it is not just for the arts in the abstract, but for the local people themselves, whom these cultural facilities serve—is the crucial point. The scheme has a significant geographical local dimension. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey in her Amendment 112. When I first read this, my mind immediately went to pubs—historic pubs. Of course, we are losing pubs as an accelerated rate. But then I realised, having done some research, that since 2017 it has not been possible to demolish a pub without seeking planning permission. So, my noble friend’s concept comes straight into the ambit of other non-pub things. But then my mind went to the Crooked House, that wonky pub in the West Midlands. I will not say that the owners were crooked, although there have been arrests and there is a police investigation. That building was on the local environmental record.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness might consider strengthening her proposal, because this is not something that is done locally on an ad hoc basis by the local council. Historic England publishes some criteria—pubs aside—for other assets that are not quite yet assets of community value. Of course, “assets of community value” is not as restrictive as you might think: there is no restriction on gifting the pub or on it being sold. The designation does not even last forever; it is for only five years, provided that the use is maintained. I just wonder whether there is any merit in saying that, where a property meets that Historic England designation on the proper national criteria, her anti-demolition provisions ought to be extended to those pro tem, so that at least we do not accidentally and carelessly lose these buildings—non-pubs, or other community buildings —accidentally. We could give additional breathing space to local communities to put a bid forward for protection.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly lend my support to both amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 185H from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, which I have signed. It dovetails neatly with the discussions we had in the debate on the last group. The noble Earl has said that this is a probing amendment, but I hope the Government will look sympathetically on it. We lose buildings of cultural value—cultural assets—at our peril, and the noble Earl made a strong case about all the challenges they have with the oncosts, lighting and heating, that they have to meet, given the sheer size of some of these buildings. I hope we can look favourably on establishing a scheme that would look at assets of cultural value in the ways he set out, and I believe it would greatly enhance the possibility of these buildings remaining for generations to come to enjoy.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for tabling Amendment 185H, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 112—I support both of them. In speaking today, I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society.
These amendments represent a vital evolution in our planning framework. Although we have long recognised the importance of assets of community value under the Localism Act 2011, we have yet to adequately address the unique vulnerability and significance of our cultural infrastructure. Amendments 185H and 112 address this vital gap by establishing a complementary scheme specifically aimed at safeguarding spaces where creativity thrives and community and cultural expression flourish.
As the noble Earl has said, Britain’s cultural landscape faces unprecedented challenges. We have witnessed the heartbreaking closure of countless music venues, recording studios, rehearsal spaces and artist studios—spaces that are not merely commercial properties but the very bedrock of our creative economy. These venues serve as incubators for emerging talent, repositories of cultural knowledge and gathering places where communities forge their identity through shared artistic expression.
I speak from personal experience. In the late 1990s, I was a member of Cubitt studios, an artist co-operative with a public gallery and 32 studio spaces, based at the time in King’s Cross before its redevelopment by the urban regeneration specialist Argent. At that time, artist-led spaces such as Cubitt prevented historic buildings from falling into decay, giving the area a focus beyond drugs and prostitution, for which it had become known. They sparked the creative energy that would later underpin the success of the King’s Cross regeneration. That pattern has been repeated across the country: artists acting as cultural guardians, only to be displaced when values rise and protections prove absent. As Neil Smith, the late geographer, once observed, artists are often “shock troops” of gentrification. They pioneer in forgotten places, but their very success makes those places vulnerable to speculative displacement.
The cleverness of this amendment lies in its recognition that cultural assets serve dual purposes: advancing the cultural well-being of communities while safeguarding the spaces essential for the development of specialist cultural skills. To a planner, a small rehearsal studio may seem inconsequential, yet it may be where the next generation of musicians learn their craft or where community groups gather to create, celebrate and connect. By building on the tested framework of the assets of community value scheme, Amendment 185H offers a proportionate and workable model.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was not going to say anything on this but, as noble Lords can see, I have been deserted so it has fallen to me. However, after listening to everyone, I will say a few words. As I will wax lyrical on another day about permitted development rights, I feel that I probably should stand and support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, really because I believe in the planning system. I believe that many developments would still be built but, if they had planning permission, they would be built far better. I have a faith in the planning system to do what is right.
Interestingly, it took me back to my own experience of the 2011 community assets Bill. We had loads of rows about the interpretation of it. I remember being in the monitoring office, really at loggerheads. There was a vociferous campaign to keep a Taekwondo space that was in the basement of a derelict factory and designate it as of community value. Believe it or not, all the parents joined in and the grandparents, but we designated for 60 social homes. You can imagine where the Mayor of Watford’s priorities lay on that.
I wrote to the Minister and got what I would call a very typical ministerial reply saying it was a local decision, but I was given a little line that gave some leeway to say that political choice and discretion could come into it. In that instance, I took a leaf out of what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, and just offered a replacement. It was as simple as that. We managed to juggle things around. We got the social housing and they got a replacement, but it showed how difficult that interpretation was. Has any work been done on what has happened to those assets of community value and how successful they have been?
I think the venues issue a really tricky one, and I have every sympathy with what both noble Lords have said. I believe that, in the end, communities come up with ideas and innovations to make things happen differently when things are threatened. In my experience, music venues do not disappear quietly; they disappear very noisily. We had a particular pub, Taylors, and my son was one of the musicians who played there. There was a great hoo-ha when it closed. Guess what? Something like it popped up somewhere else and a little bit of support was given to help it to do that. I absolutely understand what the noble Lords are saying but I do not believe that outmoded, deteriorating buildings that are underused should necessarily be protected for sentimental reasons.
I am also pleased to tell the noble Earl that another of our grass-roots music venues, which we thought had really gone, has just been given a new lease of life. It was in our local newspaper last week, and the message from the people taking it over and taking a risk with it was: if you do not use it, you lose it.
I would also like to tell the noble Earl the saga of a very old building in Watford that had been the scenery store for the Palace Theatre. When I visited our “asset”, I christened it a pigeon graveyard. That is how derelict it was and, as somebody who is feather phobic, I did not stay in there very long, but I was determined to get it into community use, which we did. It was used for many years as a space for dance, Pilates—you name it—and as rooms for charities to do their admin. But that fell off, it was not used and we were in a dilemma. The current mayor has just redone it and done a redeal with the Palace Theatre for a rehearsal space, so it has gone the full circle.
I do not see any reason why a good council would not and should not list its assets and know what matters to it. We have a wonderful pump house that is many years old. It is difficult to maintain, but I am sure there would be massive protests if that were to close. These amendments are worth considering, even though I think it probably is something that should be in local plans and be built locally from the ground up. What they provide is a moratorium on a sale or a demolition, which is important, and give a window for the community to have their say and perhaps appreciate what they might lose. We know from experience that when libraries were under threat the community stepped up and many libraries and other facilities are used within communities and have new life. There are lots of examples of that.
I am interested in what the Minister has to say and thank the noble Lords for prompting me to say something and realising that it was something quite close to my heart. It was not my amendment to speak on, but I hope that that was okay.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 112 and 185H in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. At the heart of this debate lies the recognition that housing is not merely the business of bricks and mortar, nor simply the provision of shelter; it is about the creation of places where people may live, thrive and belong; it is about communities, places to call home.
Cultural values matter profoundly. They matter both in housing and community building. When we lose the local pub, the music venue—as we have heard—the sports club or the community hall, we do not simply lose a building; we strip away the places in which people meet, share experiences and forge common bonds. These are the lifeblood of our neighbourhoods.
Assets of community value are often deeply rooted in local history and identity, as we have heard many times this afternoon. Protecting them is a necessity for living in communities and a gift to future generations. In government, we invested in the community and cultural assets through the levelling up fund, which the Government have since scrapped. But we, as a party, will continue to champion our cultural assets in opposition.
Amendment 112, in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, has the benefit of simplicity. This is a straightforward change in law that could save many important community assets. Amendment 185H is a little bit more complicated. If the Government were to accept the principle of this amendment, we hope that Ministers would be able to flesh out a little more detail on their intentions in the Bill. We do not want a need for delegated powers and then it goes into the ether.
If we are to build not only houses but homes, not only developments but communities, then these questions to the Minister are of no small importance.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for tabling these amendments which relate to the assets of community value scheme, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Freyberg, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, for contributing to the debate. This is an important scheme to enable communities to identify local assets that are important to them and to protect them for future community use. I am grateful for the commitment of noble Lords to ensuring that the scheme provides robust protections for a broad range of community assets, including cultural assets.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for mentioning the Cavern Club. Some of us are heading up to Liverpool in a couple of weeks’ time, and I am sure I will renew my acquaintance with the Cavern Club. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about a relationship between culture and locality—if there was ever an iconic one, it is that relationship between Liverpool and the Cavern Club.
Amendment 112 would add assets of community value to those buildings that are excepted from the demolition permitted development right. This would mean the owner of a listed asset would need to submit a planning application if they wished to demolish it. Concert halls, live music venues and theatres are already excluded from the demolition permitted development right. In addition, the Secretary of State and local planning authorities have the power to remove certain permitted development rights more widely in their area, through the making of an Article 4 direction, provided there is justification for the direction’s purpose and intent. I trust that the explanation provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 185H would create a separate assets of cultural value category that would operate in a similar way to the existing assets of community value scheme. However, it would specifically protect arts and cultural spaces that are of importance to the community or foster specialist cultural skills. This would enable community bodies and other bodies to nominate cultural assets, and if a listed asset is put up for sale, provide a set period for this body to put in a bid to purchase the asset to maintain it for cultural purposes. The cultural value of the asset would also be a material consideration in planning decisions.
Noble Lords will be aware the Government have recently introduced the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which contains new provisions to give communities a right to buy valued community assets. Through this change, we have amended the current assets of community value scheme to ensure that it is as strong as possible at protecting locally important assets. This includes updating the assets of community value definition to help bring more assets into scope of the policy, including those that support the economy of a community and those that were historically of importance to the community.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I really enjoyed that debate, not only because it was a trip down memory lane for some, but also because of the support for it—dare I say, apart from the Minister. I am hoping that she might agree to potentially meet me and others who have expressed a view of support.
I genuinely appreciate what the Minister says about making it easier to buy. I guess what I am trying to address, and what other Lords have recognised, is that “If it ain’t there, you can’t buy it”. I hope that perhaps the Government will think again, even if it means modifying another Bill rather than this Bill.
I will simply also say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that I recognise his ambition on extending it further, but just trying to achieve something simple and straightforward would go a long way to reflect the intentions of what the Government and your Lordships have shown by their contributions tonight, that they want communities to be able to have assets they really value. I hope the Government will change their mind in due course. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Planning decisions: termite-resistant wood(1) A local planning authority may not consent to the development of new-build homes if any wood used in the construction is not termite resistant.(2) Wood is “termite resistant” if it is—(a) a species of wood that is recognised as being naturally resistant to termites such that the risk of consumption by termites is acceptably low, or(b) sufficiently treated so as to resist satisfactorily consumption by termites.(3) “New build homes” has the same meaning as in subsection 138(5) of the Building Safety Act 2022.”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I do not know if the Minister has spent much time looking at the maps of the advance of termites across France. It is a gentle horror film, if she likes such things. They have reached Paris. There are now extensive provisions in French law for dealing with termites, for checking your house for termites before you sell it. It has become a very serious economic problem for them. As with eight-toothed bark beetle and other pests, it will doubtless make its way across the channel at some moment. It is very much headed in our direction.
Termites are not susceptible to the same pesticides as we use to control woodworm, because they function in a different way and occupy a different part of the wood. It therefore seems sensible, given that we are likely to get this thing, for us to make preparation for its arrival and not leave our entire housing stock vulnerable.
Indeed, if we were to make preparations before the termites arrive, we would have a set of people who are used to combating them and dealing with the pesticides involved, and an industry that is not building houses that are vulnerable to them. I therefore very much recommend this provision to the Government, although I appreciate that it may not actually require an amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 113, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, which raises an important and thought-provoking issue that merits the attention of your Lordships’ Committee and the Government’s consideration.
Amendment 113 concerns the use of termite-resistant wood in new-build homes. My noble friend Lord Lucas draws attention to the risks that they pose. Although historically more common in warmer climates, they may become prevalent here as our own climate changes and, as he mentioned, as they inevitably move further northwards from France. The damage that termites can inflict on timber structures is both severe and costly. In regions where infestations have taken hold, the consequences for home owners, insurers and local authorities have been profound. As temperatures rise, it is only prudent to consider the resilience of our housing stock to such emerging risks.
While I will not take a definitive position on the amendment, I commend my noble friend for raising these matters. They speak to the broader challenge of building homes that are not only fit for purpose today but resilient to the demands of tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on how the Government intend to engage on this important issue.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 113. He is right that I was not intimately acquainted with the procedure of termites in France. However, I do now know far more about the house longhorn beetle than I have ever known, and I will continue to look at this issue.
The noble Lord may have been in the Chamber on Monday when we were discussing wood being used in construction. I mentioned an office development I visited, which is just across the river from Parliament, and which makes extensive use of wood in its construction. We will see more of that; wood is a good building material and developments such as that are good uses of wood. It is therefore very important that we take these matters extremely seriously.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to prevent planning authorities from granting planning permission for new-build homes if timber construction products specified at planning stages are not termite resistant. Fortunately for us, termites are not endemic to the UK. Even though an infestation was recorded in the 1990s, that was subject to a successful eradication programme.
While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention, the Building Regulations, rather than the planning system, are the appropriate way of establishing minimum legal requirements in the design of new building work. The sanitary arrangements we have in place to regulate timber imports allow us to remain vigilant. The Government take the view that mandating termite resistance in any wood used for construction materials in new-build homes would be a disproportionate measure, leading to an increased cost for developers and consumers, and adding to local planning authority burdens. However, if a threat were to emerge, guidance on timber products for new development and suitable wood treatments could be included in Approved Document A, which accompanies the Building Regulations for structure.
I hope I have given some reassurance to the noble Lord; nevertheless, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for that reply, even though I had hoped for something more positive. I did take out of that, given the caution that the Minister expressed about raising costs for housebuilders, that the rumours of a change to the landfill tax are probably erroneous. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Best
“Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applicationsIn Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
“(zg) | Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens | The Gardens Trust”” |
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, had to leave, so I am moving Amendment 114 in his place, with the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman of Steventon and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The amendment would make the Gardens Trust a statutory consultee for planning applications that are likely to affect historic gardens and parks.
In sponsoring the amendment, the noble Lord would have declared his interests, which are also his credentials. He is the owner of a listed garden of some consequence and the park around it, and he has been involved with other owners and trustees of historic and particularly important gardens and parks. He is president of Historic Buildings & Places, previously the Ancient Monuments Society, and he is a member of the Gardens Trust, which I will come back to in a moment.
The working of the town and country planning system is buttressed by the various national amenity societies, which can bring to bear their very often specialist expertise in respect of some of the most sensitive sites in the country. These national amenity societies are essentially focused on buildings, but it is increasingly recognised, not least in the many debates on place-making, and I have been part of a lot of them, that the setting of buildings may be at least as important as a building itself. This relates both to the views in and to the views out.
Equally important are open spaces, which may have no buildings at all—for example, public parks and historic gardens. Expertise in these matters is not necessarily found among the established national amenity societies or planning authorities. The Gardens Trust, which was previously called the Garden History Society, has the expertise in this area, the same as national amenity societies in relation to buildings. It has evolved its work over time as the scholarship on this matter develops. It has been suggested that these matters do not require a statutory consultee because they can be dealt with through local plans, but local plans cover only about a third of local authorities and this is often about the detail. It is the devil in the detail that matters here.
I hope it is possible for government to add another statutory consultee in respect of gardens, parks and the planning applications that are likely to affect historic gardens and parks. I believe that consultation is under way and may lead to this happy outcome, but it would be great to hear the views of the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am in a similar position to the noble Lord, Lord Best, with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who expected a 7 pm finish, having gone for a train. I will try not to make a dog’s breakfast of her notes.
I will speak to Amendments 118 and 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The Liberal Democrats accept the aim of the Government in their desire to ensure that decisions on planning applications are made in a considered and timely way. The proposals in the Bill appear to neglect the notion of a considered and inclusive approach to planning decisions. Planning decisions matter hugely to communities because decisions can have a lasting impact on that community. The aim must surely be to get the balance in favour of enabling decisions to be made with the communities affected. Failure to do so can lead to long and acrimonious disputes between communities and developers. I can vouch for that.
Pre-application consideration of an application supports the needs of both a developer and the community affected. Pre-application consultation is most relevant for larger domestic and commercial applications, but may be of use in small but controversial ones, and here is why: a comprehensive pre-application stage allows for issues to be identified and resolved at the earliest opportunity, preventing costly delays and complex disputes later in the process. For example, at a pre-application consultation with residents on an application for a large housing estate, residents were able to provide vital information to the developer on the siting of historic mine workings. The precise information as to the location was not available from historical records, but residents whose families had lived in the area for many years knew. The pre-application meeting saved the developer from extensive works to find the shaft.
Another major commercial application, which cost the developer more than £100 million in preparation fees, was refused on grounds that would have become very clear if residents had been consulted before the application was submitted.
The pre-application process is currently good practice, and Amendment 119 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock is designed to make this a mandatory process. The pre-app should include, as the word suggests, an opportunity for councillors in the ward and residents to have details of the planned application, to ask questions and make suggestions about it—crucially, before a more formal application is submitted, when it becomes much more difficult to make changes. It empowers communities to be able to influence an application that will change their neighbourhood. This collaborative approach builds trust, ensures that proposals are fit for purpose and fosters greater public acceptance of vital infrastructure.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 114, 118 and 119, tabled, respectively, by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and introduced so ably by their deputies—sorry, substitutes. These amendments seek to improve the quality and accountability of consultation within the planning system. Amendment 114 seeks to make the Gardens Trust a statutory consultee for developments affecting historic parks and gardens. These are not just green spaces; they are vital heritage assets, and their protection should be part of the planning process.
Amendment 118 seeks to require pre-application consultation with the emergency services where developments may affect their operations. Too often, the fire and ambulance services are brought in too late, after issues arise, not before.
Finally, Amendment 119 addresses a more systemic issue: the need for meaningful consultation with communities. It would require the Secretary of State to consider how developers have engaged with local people before accepting applications for development consent. The message is clear: consultation should be early, serious and able to influence outcomes. It should not be just a tick-box exercise.
The role of a statutory consultee is important in the planning process, and it is right that appropriate bodies are consulted. However, it is also important that their responses are timely and pragmatic and do not unduly delay the planning process. Expanding the list of consultees may be justified but we must at all times have an eye on the risks of delay and overburdensome rules in the planning system, too.
Ultimately, these amendments are about restoring public confidence. When people feel genuinely listened to, development is not only more likely to succeed but more likely to be supported. Relationship building is intrinsic to successful planning. This helps everyone: communities, planners and developers alike. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who tabled these important amendments and their two substitutes for speaking to them. I thank all noble Lords for their patience in a very long Thursday Bill session; I am grateful to them all.
Amendments 114 and 118, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to designate the Gardens Trust and the emergency services as statutory consultees within the planning system. I begin by acknowledging the contributions these organisations already make across a range of functions. When you have been involved in planning, you know how important that expert advice is on significant environmental, transport, safety and heritage issues to make sure that we end up with good decision-making.
However, on 26 January the Chancellor announced a pause in the introduction of new statutory consultees, pending a broader review of the current framework. The Housing Minister subsequently issued a Written Ministerial Statement on 10 March, setting out the Government’s intention to reform the system to ensure that statutory consultees can provide timely and expert advice that supports high-quality development. The Government will be consulting on those proposed reforms shortly.
The Statement also set out our intention to consult on the impact of removing certain statutory consultees, including the Gardens Trust. This reflects a desire to streamline processes and address duplication, as Historic England already holds statutory responsibilities for higher-graded parks and gardens. This is a consultation only, and no decision will be made until we have fully considered the feedback on potential impacts.
The Government also intend to consult on their approach to the introduction of new statutory consultees, recognising that risks and responsibilities of course evolve over time. This consultation will reflect the fact that there must be a high bar to creating new statutory consultees if we are to avoid exacerbating current issues of uncertainty, bureaucracy and delay. We should be requiring consultation on a case-by-case basis only if it is not possible to address matters strategically. Input is often effectively secured through local plans, including engagement with the emergency services, such as designing out crime; and where case-by-case engagement is warranted, local authorities already have the discretion to consult these bodies on a non-statutory basis.
Furthermore, in considering potential additions to the list of statutory consultees, it is essential that the roles of existing statutory consultees should not be duplicated, and that functions already addressed through other regimes, such as building regulations, should not be duplicated either. The fire and rescue service, for instance, already must be consulted on relevant plans as part of the building safety regulations, while the Building Safety Regulator oversees and approves work for high-risk buildings. Meanwhile, the Health and Safety Executive operates a hazardous substance licensing regime and is a statutory consultee on development applications which may be impacted by this.
Finally, although we deeply value the insights provided by a wide range of organisations during public consultations, statutory consultee status carries with it a legal obligation to respond within prescribed timeframes. That is a very significant responsibility, and sometimes even existing consultees—sometimes even upper-tier councils if you are in a district council—face challenges in meeting the requirements. For this reason, we believe the threshold for granting such status must remain appropriately high.
As I have set out, we intend to consult on these matters soon. If decisions are taken to introduce new statutory consultees, this can be done through secondary legislation under existing powers.
Amendment 119 proposes that the Secretary of State consider how community consultation has been carried out when deciding whether an NSIP application should be accepted for examination. It suggests specifically that the Secretary of State must consider whether the application has sought to resolve issues, enabled interested parties to influence the project during the early phases, obtained relevant information about the locality, and enabled appropriate mitigation through consultation.
We agree that engaging communities can support applicants to improve their applications by enabling them to identify issues important to the local community, to understand the likely impacts of the scheme, and to consider potential mitigations. However, as we have seen over our time debating these clauses, we know that the existing statutory tests related to consultation do not achieve that in a proportionate way.
We know this because evidence shows that existing statutory pre-application consultation requirements, the scale and specificity of which have been unique to the NSIP regime, have led to unintended consequences. Developers, keen to avoid risk, produce overly complex documentation aimed more at legal compliance than genuine engagement. They are reluctant to adapt their plans in response to feedback, fearing that they will need to reconsult if they do so, which slows down delivery and drives up costs—which in turn frustrates the UK’s ability to plan and deliver essential infrastructure.
I remind the Committee that, since 2013, the pre-application stage has doubled in length. Our proposals could save businesses up to £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament by reducing delays across projects. That is why we have proposed removing statutory consultation requirements at the pre-application stage, including the adequacy of consultation test in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. Instead, we are introducing a clearer, more practical acceptance test: is the application suitable to proceed to examination?
This new test allows the Secretary of State to make a balanced judgment about the quality of the application and recognises that the NSIP planning process is a continuum from pre-application through to decision. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that the changes that the Government are proposing do not undermine the importance of consultation and engagement on applications, as my honourable friend Matthew Pennycook made clear in his ministerial Statement on 23 April. Applications are unlikely to be of sufficient quality to be granted consent if meaningful engagement has not been undertaken on them.
Instead of statutory requirements, the Government have now issued a consultation on guidance which will seek to help applicants understand what good engagement looks like. That consultation is open until 27 October, and we are looking forward to receiving responses. The Planning Inspectorate’s advice will also continue to emphasise the value of early issue resolution. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is satisfied with the comments of the Minister. In relation to the Gardens Trust becoming a statutory consultee, I note that there is a review of the whole process and, indeed, of the individual components within that, and that if it is going to be possible to have a new statutory consultee, secondary legislation could take care of that. At the same time, I also noticed a certain reluctance to be enthusiastic about this amendment. We will hope for the best, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.